Ajay Agarwal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Ajay Agarwal, apprehending arrest in connection with a crime registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that a phone recovered from the applicant was used to register a digital signature for the complainant. The applicant contends that he is innocent and had no role in registering the digital signature or the video KYC verification. He argues that the digital signature was used to change the complainant's Income Tax portal details, leading to a notice from the Income Tax Department. The applicant asserts that the FIR and portal access locations have no nexus with him, and his only connection is that the phone number updated on the portal was used on a phone found in his possession. He further states the phone was for office use, he was unaware of the SIM used, and the audit report upload was done via digital signature, not the phone number.

Held

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Ajay Agarwal. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by both parties, and the nature of the dispute. While not commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The applicant is directed to execute a personal bond with one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Conditions for bail include not inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts to dissuade them from disclosing facts, not acting in a manner prejudicial to a fair trial, appearing before the trial court until disposal, submitting identity documents for verification, and not involving himself in similar offenses in the future.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of fraud under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argues that he is innocent and has no role in the alleged offense. He claims the digital signature and video KYC were handled by others, and he is not connected to the person who recorded the video. He emphasizes that the phone recovered was for office use, he was unaware of the SIM card, and the fraud was committed using a digital signature, not the phone number. He suggests the phone number used might have been randomly entered by the perpetrator and coincidentally found on his phone. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, noting that the applicant has no criminal antecedents in Chhattisgarh or West Bengal.