Manish Agrawal vs State of Uttarakhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 592

RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Manish Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA., Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.126 of 2024, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Lalkuan, District Nainital, Uttarakhand.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the applicant approached the informant for purchasing timber. The applicant gave Rs.2 lakh and two trucks timber was supplied to him. But, thereafter, payment was not made. The informant visited at the place of the applicant where, the FIR records that the applicant gave a cheque which was not duly filled up. Subsequently, the informant came to know that, in fact, GST of the applicant’s Company had already been cancelled on 19.03.2024 and his company had already been closed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation. He was given a notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), but still the Investigating Officer is threatening to arrest him.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that earlier applicant had filed WPCRL No.607 of 2024, in which, the Court had directed the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure

Click Here to Read the rest of this document