Allahabad High Court
Geeta Devi vs State Of U.P. on 2 August, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6653 of 2022
Applicant :- Geeta Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bindu Kumari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Ms. Bindu Kumari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Case Crime No.168 of 2019, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, Police Station Pipari, District Sonbhadra.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant is Director of Lalta Singh & Sons petrol pump. The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant received huge money from Mangalmurti Construction Company by making false and forged bills of diesel. Further submission is that there is a contractual terms between petrol pump and firm of first informant namely Mangalmurti Construction Company for filling the diesel and due to money dispute, the impugned FIR has been lodged. Further submission is that earlier the Manager of the petrol pump of applicant had lodged an FIR through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C in which alleged date of incident was mentioned as 29.08.2018 for recovery of money of diesel supplied to the firm of Mangalmurti Construction Company. Further submission is that the dispute is purely civil in nature but has given criminal colour just to harass the applicant. After investigation, the Investigating Officer without appreciating these facts has submitted charge sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Further submission is that during investigation, the applicant has cooperated in investigation and has not arrested, hence, there is no need of custodial interrogation. The applicant is having no previous criminal history. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed anticipatory bail application of the applicant and has submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and in view of seriousness of the allegation against the applicant, she is not entitled for anticipatory bail, hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra), the Court has observed as under:
"10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
11. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
In Aman Preet Singh (supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly seeing the fact that applicant is having no previous criminal history and during investigation she has fully cooperated and participated in the investigation, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant-Geeta Devi, be released on bail by the trial Court till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) the applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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;
(ii) the applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation;
(iii) in case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and
(iv) 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 her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
(v) The accused/appellant shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 2.8.2022
Ajeet
