Mahjabi Bano vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 19143 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6513 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Mahjabi Bano
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Despite time being granted to learned counsel for the applicant for filing rejoinder affidavit on 04.03.2022, 12.04.2022 and 14.11.2022, the same has not been filed.

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant after rejecting her anticipatory bail application by the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 0011 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for applicant is that applicant is a lady serving as Assistant Branch Manager in the Manappuram Gold Loan Bank. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that she was transferred on 19.08.2020 from Manappuram Gold Loan Branch Varanasi to Mahanagar Branch Lucknow and submitted her joining report as per Rules of the Company. The key of the double lock almirah remains with the Manager and Deputy Manager and on the holiday, they entrusted the key to the cashier. The applicant has further contended that for the entire month of August, 2020, she has not taken the key of any almirah of the Bank because she had to go to Varanasi due to some family problems. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet dated 16.07.2021 has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant without conducting fair investigation. During investigation, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant vide order dated 29.06.2021 and she has cooperated with the investigation.

Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that Investigating Officer, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet dated 16.07.2021 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that she has been falsely implicated.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused-applicant and also judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant.

Accordingly, the instant application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Order Date :- 29.11.2022

Shubham