Allahabad High Court
Shweta Kumari vs State Of U.P. on 17 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3847 of 2023
Applicant :- Shweta Kumari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Madhukar Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Kesharwani, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.528 of 2022, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and 66-D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station Medical College, District Meerut with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, some unknown persons are stated to have duped various persons by opening a fake call centre.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She is the wife of one of the accused persons Ranjan Kumar. The three accused persons, namely, Narayan Kela, Mohit Sharma and Ranjan Kumar were arrested by the police and name of the applicant has come up in the statement of co-accused person Ranjan Kumar, who happens to be husband of the applicant, who has stated that he used to get the said amount transferred in the account which was held by the applicant. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. She is a housewife and has a child of one and half years to take care of.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that she has been made an accused at the behest of her husband Ranjan Kumar. 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. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest 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.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. 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.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Shweta Kumari be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 17.4.2023/ Vikas
