Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 140497 (ALL)

VINOD AGARWAL @ BINOD AGRAWAL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

NABAIL/484/2025 · 2025-05-20

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29820 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 484 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinod Agarwal @ Binod Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- S M Singh Royekwar,Dr. Deepti Singh,Vaibhav Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1. 2. In view of order being passed in this petition, notices to opposite parties 2 and 3 stand dispensed with. 2A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Anticipatory Bail (Transit) Application has been filed with regard to Complaint Case No. C 1654/2024 under Sections 316, 318, 61(2) of B.N.S.pending in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, State of Bihar, P.S. Jokihat, District Araria, Bihar. 4. As per contents of complaint case, applicant allegedly failed to make payment of wages due to the labourers who had been indirectly employed by him. 5. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that a perusal of the complaint itself would indicate that a civil dispute is given an unnecessary criminal colour. It is submitted that complaint has been filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, State of Bihar while applicant resides in Lucknow. He is seeking transit anticipatory bail for purposes of filing regular anticipatory bail or any other legal remedy before court concerned. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749 particularly paragraph 93.4 thereof to indicate reasonable and immediate threat to personal liberty of applicant in view of his medical status and disability as well as fact that he has an apprehension of arrest in Lucknow itself as indicated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of supplementary affidavit filed today. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed transit anticipatory bail with submission that even as per the decision relied upon by learned counsel for applicant, it is the court concerned which has taken cognizance of the complaint where only anticipatory bail application is maintainable. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that applicant is seeking transitory anticipatory bail by placing reliance on a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as indicated herein above. In terms thereof, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of supplementary affidavit filed today, it has been indicated that in terms of complaint filed and taken cognizance of in the State of Bihar, S.H.O. Hasanganj has sought to arrest applicant in terms of warrants issued in State of Bihar and therefore there is apprehension of arrest. The aspect of medical disability of applicant has also been indicated. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Priya Indoria(supra), it would be appropriate to grant transit anticipatory bail to applicant for a limited period of six weeks from today. 8. In view of the above, it is provided that till 03.07.2025 in the event of arrest, applicant Vinod Agarwal @ Binod Agrawal shall be released on transitory anticipatory bail in aforesaid Complaint Case on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned/arresting officer subject to following conditions:- (i) 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 tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the witnesses; (iv) The applicant shall cooperate in the proceedings of the case. 9. The application stands allowed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench