Allahabad High Court
Usha Devi vs State Of U.P. on 20 October, 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. - 7840 of 2022
Applicant :- Usha Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prabha Shanker Mishra,Ayush Mishra
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard 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 arrest in connection with Case Crime No.556 of 2018, under Sections 147, 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station--Didoli, District -Amroha.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that husband of the applicant, namely, Charan Singh was CMD in Amplify Real Estate Private Limited, Situated in Village-Mubarakpur, Joya, Police Station--Didoli, District -Amroha. Initially the first informant was agent of the said company in the year, 2013 and later on the first informant became Director of the company. The applicant resigned from the said company in the year, 2016, therefore, no question of his involvement in day to day affairs arises. If there is any misappropriation or forgery, the same is related to the first informant, thus no disclosed offence is made out against the applicant. By means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 36594 of 2018 the applicant approached before this Court and the applicant got protection by this Court till filing of charge sheet by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2018.
He further submitted that the Investigating Officer of the present case without collecting cogent and credible evidence filed charge sheet in a routine manner. Further submission is that the applicant fully cooperated with the investigation, therefore no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants 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 Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicant.
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, 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-Usha 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 the applicant 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 counsel. In case of absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant 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 his/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 the applicant 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
Anuj Singh
