Allahabad High Court
Smt. Mamodar Devi vs State Of U.P. on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1637 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Mamodar Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Vishnu Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Pandey
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 Case Crime No. 644 of 2021, under Sections- 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC, Police Station Jewar, District- Gautambudh Nagar.
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 FIR. Allegation against the applicant is that the forged T.C. was issued from the school of her husband in the name of Deepak Kumar. It was further alleged that the actual name of Deepak Kumar is Kuldeep Kumar Prabhakar. It is further submitted that the school is run by the husband of the applicant. The applicant is not the Principal of the institution and as such no forged T.C. was issued by the applicant. The said T.C. was issued in the year 2006 but the FIR was lodged against the applicant and others on 15.8.2021 i.e. after about 15 years of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that due to dispute between the applicant's brother namely, Satish and the first informant who is the real cousin brother of Satish, the false and frivolous FIR was lodged against the applicant. Thus no disclosed offence is made out against the applicant. Further submission is that the matter is still under investigation. The applicant is a practising lawyer aged about 62 years. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation as well as trial and undertakes that if she is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of the same.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the above facts.
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. Mamodar Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 :- 14.12.2022
Shravan
