Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1416 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8036 of 2015)
Rajendra Prakash Agrawal Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Union of India & Anr. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the final order dated 19.08.2015 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 19406 of 2015 filed by the appellant herein whereby the
High Court rejected the bail application filed by the appellant herein.
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, it is
necessary to state the few relevant facts in brief.
4. The appellant and others are facing trial for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 read with Section 13 (2) and Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 pursuant to FIR bearing Case Crime No. RC-
1202013A0003 of 2013 lodged at Police Station -CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad.
5. The appellant-an architect by profession was apprehended in May 2015
in connection with the aforesaid crime case and since then he is in jail.
6. The appellant filed bail application No. 2766 of 2015 before the
Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, CBI, Court No.1, Ghaziabad. By
order dated 08.05.2015, the said application was rejected.
7. Thereafter, the appellant applied for grant of bail before the High
Court at Allahabad. By impugned order, the High Court rejected the said
bail application.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged four submissions in support
of this appeal. In the first place, he contended that the appellant was not
named in the FIR and hence this fact should have been taken note of while
considering his bail application. His second submission was that the entire
investigation is now complete and charge sheet has been filed against all
the accused persons including the appellant in competent court. His third
submission was that appellant is quite an old man aged around 71 years and
is also ailing. His fourth submission was that appellant is in custody for
the last six months and there is no one in appellant's family to look after
his dependents and lastly, since the issues involved in the trial mostly
relate to documents and the appellant having co-operated throughout in
investigation which resulted in filing of charge sheet and has no past
criminal record of any kind against the appellant, he be released on bail
on terms.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application for grant
of bail contending that the charges against the appellant are quite
serious.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the
fact that firstly, the investigation in the case is complete; secondly, the
charge sheet is filed; thirdly, the appellant is in custody for the last
six months and lastly, looking to the old age of the appellant who is also
ailing, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to
the appellant.
12. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The
appellant is directed to be released on bail during trial to the
satisfaction of the trial Judge.
………...................................J.
[J. CHELAMESWAR]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
October 26, 2015.
-----------------------
4
