Page 1

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.

1. Leave granted.

2. 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  

1

Page 2

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  

2

Page 3

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  

3

Page 4

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