Manish Agrawal vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The applicant, Manish Agrawal, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 126 of 2024, registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Lalkuan, District Nainital. The FIR alleged that the applicant purchased timber for Rs. 2 lakh and received two trucks of timber but failed to make the payment. Subsequently, the informant discovered that the applicant's company's GST registration had been cancelled on March 19, 2024, and the company had ceased operations. The applicant claimed he was cooperating with the investigation and had received a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C., yet faced threats of arrest. The State argued that despite a previous court direction to follow Section 41-A, the applicant did not appear for his statement. The informant alleged cheating and non-cooperation.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Court acknowledged that the matter was at the bail stage and extensive discussion was not expected. However, after considering the facts, including the applicant's willingness to cooperate and the circumstances surrounding the FIR, the Court found it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Additionally, the applicant was mandated to cooperate with the investigation, not approach any witness, not leave the country without prior court permission, and deposit his passport with the Arresting Officer, or provide an undertaking if he did not possess one. He was also required to give an undertaking regarding his cooperation, non-approach to witnesses, and not leaving the country.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and non-payment of dues related to a business transaction involving timber and the cancellation of GST registration. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was ready to cooperate with the investigation and had received a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. He contended that despite this, the Investigating Officer was threatening to arrest him. He also claimed that the Investigating Officer threatened to arrest his father after being informed about a previous court order in WPCRL No. 607 of 2024.