Adarsh Agrahari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2962 of 2023 Applicant :- Adarsh Agrahari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Zia Ul Qayuim,Ajeet Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶1Heard Sri Zia Ul Qayuim, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶2The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 708 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 120-B, 467, 4568, 471 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶3The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 15.09.2021 against three persons, including the applicant, describing him as an employee of Shine City, stating that the informant had purchased a plot of land from Shine City Erectors Pvt. Ltd. through a sale deed dated 21.10.2014 but he did not get possession of the plot. Through the FIR, the informant requested that possession of the plot be handed over to him.

¶4In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in three other cases has been disclosed in the affidavit, in two of which he has been granted bail.

¶5It has further been stated in the affidavit that the applicant has never been an employee of the aforesaid company and in fact he himself had purchased a plot from the company and has been duped because of non delivery of possession.

¶6The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶7Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the grievance of the informant is regarding non delivery of possession of a plot purchased from the company, of which the applicant is neither a director nor any other principal position holder and the applicant claims that he was not even the employee of the company and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant during pendency of the trial.

¶8In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Adarsh Agrahari before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of the trial on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;

(ii). That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

(iii). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. Order Date :- 20.12.2023 Pradeep/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench