Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ekta Prajapati vs State Of U.P. on 28 November, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10851 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Ekta Prajapati
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Salman Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Sengar
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akshay Raj Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the informant and R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.854 of 2020, registered under Sections 406, 420, 504, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station- Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
Admittedly, the applicant is the tenant of the informant herein. Initially, the said shop was taken on rent by the father of the applicant and a rent deed was signed amongst them on 05.04.2016 and the father of the applicant is stated to have expired on 03.11.2019. The father of the applicant held a drug licence w.e.f. 2016 to 2021. After the death of the father of the applicant, the applicant is stated to have applied for drug licence and is also stated to have taken an electricity connection on the basis of forged signatures of the informant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. She has never applied for any drug licence as the said shop was being used as a store only and no sale purchase of any drugs was being undertaken from it. The applicant had filed a Civil Suit No.226 of 2020 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalaun at Orai on 12.11.2020. The present FIR dated 15.11.2020 is a counterblast to the said civil suit filed by the applicant. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that she has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant has forged the signatures of the informant, although he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Smt. Ekta Prajapati be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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 or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 28.11.2022
Ravi Kant
