Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 656 (ALL)

Vishal Agrawal v. State of U. P.

2015-03-31

BRIJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA II

body2015
JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II,J. Counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit filed in Court today, be taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the documents annexed with the bail application. 3. This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Vishal Agrawal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 585 of 2014, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. P.S.- Chowk, District-Lucknow. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is suffering from cancer and his treatment is continuing in different hospitals. It is also contended that at the most it can be said to be a civil dispute and no connecting evidence has been collected by the prosecution. Further submission is that applicant is in jail since 21.11.2014 having no criminal history to his credit as averred in paragraph nos. 37 and 38 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application on the ground of facts mentioned in the first information report. It is submitted that applicant was working as broker on commission basis and as per the allegation leveled in the F.I.R. applicant is responsible for causing loss to the tune of Rs. 1 Crore. It is also contended that in fact applicant in collusion with shopkeepers mislead the complainant of the case and by appending his signature has tried to convince the complainant for receipt of items and payments also. 6. Learned A.G.A. further submits that during investigation it is found that more than Rs. 46 Lacs loss has occasioned to the complainant and the charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed against the applicant. The period of detention is not disputed but the active involvement of the applicant in the commission of causing loss to the complainant has been found to be true. It is also submitted that the applicant is hale and hearty. 7. In reply learned counsel for the applicant submits that that the applicant is a patient of cancer and no loss has been caused to the complainant. 8. Learned A.G.A. submits that the active participation of the applicant is there in causing loss to the complainant. 9. It is also submitted that the applicant is hale and hearty. 7. In reply learned counsel for the applicant submits that that the applicant is a patient of cancer and no loss has been caused to the complainant. 8. Learned A.G.A. submits that the active participation of the applicant is there in causing loss to the complainant. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention raised by both learned counsel for parties, the allegation against the applicant is serious because huge loss has been caused to the complainant by the applicant, who was working as commission agent. I do not find any case for granting bail to the applicant. 10. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant Vishal Agrawal, is hereby rejected.