Smt. Avantika Blanchfield vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2257 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3735 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Avantika Blanchfield
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Aarushi Khare
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0139 of 2022, under Sections 420, 504, 506, 387, 120-B The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Nawabad, district Jhansi, during pendency of investigation/trial.

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U. P. Amendment) is not required.

The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant in pursuance of an application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against three named persons including applicant. It was alleged in the first information report that the informant was looking after his aunt, who was issue-less and died during Covid at Kanpur. It was alleged that husband of the applicant had used the ATM card of the deceased, Viola Madhubala Nathan for the treatment of his aunt and had withdrawn much more amount from her account than the amount actually spent in the treatment of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the applicant is lady and is wife of Vikas Solomon Blanchfield. He submitted that the applicant is cancer patient and the applicant has not taken any active part in the money transaction if any and the applicant has not withdrawn any money through ATM of the deceased. If any money was withdrawn that was withdrawn by the husband of the applicant, who was also a nominee to the bank account of his aunt. He submitted that husband of the applicant was very well empowered to use the ATM card of his aunt. He submitted that the husband of the applicant had used the money withdrawn through ATM card in the treatment of the deceased (aunt), who died in the Kanpur due to Covid. He submitted that the money was withdrawn by the husband of the applicant for the treatment of the deceased (his aunt). He further submitted that both the complainant and husband of the applicant are relatives of the deceased and there is property dispute amongst them and the complainant wants to grab the property of the deceased and that is why this false first information report has been lodged just to injure the reputation of the applicant by having her so arrested. He submitted that no proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant. He submitted that charge sheet has not been filed till date. He submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and she will not tamper with the evidence in any way.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend them. After lodging of F.I.R, the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an F.I.R has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349, the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made. The learned counsel has also place reliance on the order dated 28.7.2021 passed by the The Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021 Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that prima facie, we cannot appreciate why in such a scenario is there a requirement for the petitioner being sent to custody.

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, considering that accusation might have been lodged with the object of injuring the reputation of the applicant by having her so arrested, considering that the applicant is lady and is cancer patient considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021.

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail.

Let the applicant Smt. Avantika Blanchfield involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/ Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-

1.The applicant shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish her address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.

2. The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial/ investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

3. The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischeif with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;

4. The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case she has no passport, she will file her affidavit before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.

5. That 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

6. The applicant shall maintain law and order.

7. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

8. 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 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.

9. 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.

Order Date :- 7.5.2022

R./