Rahul Agrawal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application of Rahul Agrawal. The Court considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. Key factors influencing the decision included the fact that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report (FIR). Additionally, the Court noted that the applicant had been in jail since December 30, 2022, and that the offenses alleged were triable by a Magistrate. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it to be a fit case for granting bail. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to several conditions, including appearance before the Investigating Officer within 20 days, not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, and cooperating with the trial court. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Rahul Agrawal, the applicant, in FIR No. 41 of 2021. The prosecution alleges that materials were transported without paying tax, and fake firms were used to obtain GST numbers, leading to significant tax evasion. The applicant's counsel argued that Rahul Agrawal is not named in the FIR, nor is he an owner, director, or partner in any of the firms mentioned. His name surfaced through the confessional statement of a co-accused, Aditya Jaiswal. The applicant claims he was arrested in Lucknow, not Balrampur as stated, and provided evidence of police presence at his Lucknow residence and a complaint by his father. He has been in jail since December 30, 2022, and the offenses are Magistrate-triable. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Rahul Agrawal, is entitled to bail in FIR No. 41 of 2021, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-C of the IT Act, considering he is not named in the FIR and his alleged involvement stems from a co-accused's confession? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that Rahul Agrawal is not named in the FIR and is not directly associated with the alleged fake firms. His involvement is based solely on the confessional statement of a co-accused. Furthermore, the applicant's counsel highlighted discrepancies in the arrest location, presenting evidence that the arrest occurred in Lucknow, not Balrampur. The applicant has been incarcerated since December 30, 2022, the offenses are triable by a Magistrate, and the investigation is ongoing. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue's Arguments: The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.