Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anjali Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 August, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6646 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Anjali Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harish Chandra,Pawan Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 1101 of 2022 dated 13.7.2019 under sections- 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. As per allegations in the complaint, the applicant is the employee of Equitas Small Finance Bank situated at Chandani Chowk and she in connivance with Smt. Sheetal and Shekhar Sachdeva was involved in cheating people on the pretext of providing them loan. The applicant being a bank employee received a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- in cash as processing fee for sanctioning a loan of Rs. 35 lakhs.
The counsel for the applicant further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant as the applicant has neither prepared any forged document nor deceived the complainant. The applicant has already been bailed out vide order dated 30.3.2022 in the Complaint Case No. 4521 of 2021 U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-14 to the affidavit. The counsel submits that as there is apprehension of arrest of the applicant, therefore, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail. In support of his submission, the counsel for the applicant has also relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in Kamlesh and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (2019) SCC Online SC 1822. The relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:
"4. The appellants are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. The appellants were accused in FIR No.269/2016. The High Court vide order dated 05.02.2018 rejected the application for anticipatory bail only on the ground that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of FIR, has already been rejected.
5. We are of the view that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. High Court ought to have considered the application on merits. The fact that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for quashing was not conclusive and could not be the reason for rejecting the application. The husband of the complainant has already filed special leave petition in which notice has been issued, which is pending in this Court. This Court had passed an order on 23.02.2018 not to arrest the appellants subject to their cooperation with the investigation."
The counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial and undertakes that if she is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of the same.
Learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that prima facie, case is made out against the applicant. Thus, the application is liable to be rejected.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest, the applicant- Smt. Anjali Sharma involved in the aforesaid complaint case shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
(2) The applicant 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; and
(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicant 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.
(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the 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.
(7) The applicant 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 him in accordance with law.
In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 29.8.2022
Shravan
