Allahabad High Court
Robin Oberoi And Other vs State Of U.P. on 6 May, 2022
Author: Ajit Singh
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3617 of 2022 Applicant :- Robin Oberoi And Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Robin Oberoi and Meetu Agarwal with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2022, under sections 406, 420 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kamlanagar, district-Agra.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
The first information report was lodged by the informant against the present accused, alleging therein that the present accused are in the habit of deceiving innocent persons. It was also mentioned in the FIR that applicant no. 2 Meetu Agarwal is the wife of applicant no. 1 Robin Oberoi. She is an architect by profession and she is an active member of the gang of Robin Oberoi. It was also mentioned that the present accused had given him assurance that they would get provide tender for electrician work in Soviar Builders Pvt., Ltd. at Delhi, which is known as real estate company. They also assured the informant to get provide a job in the aforesaid company and provide a flat on nominal rent also. On the promise made by the present accused, the informant had transferred a sum of Rs. seven lac in the account of accused Robin Oberoi and Lovey Singh respectively on various dates in the year 2021-22. It was also alleged that present accused had misbehaved with the informant when he demanded his money returned back, which were taken by the present accused through bank transfer in the account of Lovely Singh.
Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case only just to tarnish their images and injure their reputation in the society. The applicant no. 2 Meetu Agarwal is an architect and he was working with her as an electrician. Further submission is that the alleged payment made by the informant in the account of Lovely Singh was not delivered to the present accused. The applicants have no connection or acquaintance with Lovely Singh. He also submits that the applicants had also transferred various amounts in the account of informant on various dates, which shows that he was working with the applicants and the applicants had made payment to him through transfer as well as cash. Further submission is that if the applicants are released on bail, they will co-operate during investigation. The applicants are having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and antecedent of the applicants, considering the gravity of the offence, considering the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021.
In the event of arrest of the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., if any, before the competent court/S.H.O. concern on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
3. That the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
5. In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
6. The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 6.5.2022 Faridul