Allahabad High Court
Smt. Amisha Karanwal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 April, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2939 of 2023
Applicant :- Smt. Amisha Karanwal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Smt. Amisha Karanwal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 428 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Mandi, District Saharanpur.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant is the father-in-law of the accused applicant and some family settlement took place between the family members and a deed was prepared on 12.05.2006.
It is alleged in the F.I.R. that subsequently, the forged entry was made by the present accused applicant and the date of deed was changed as 11.07.2006 and it was also mentioned that the Cold storage was given exclusively to the present accused applicant by way of family settlement which was forged act on the part of the accused applicant. Some civil suit was filed and meanwhile, an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.21919 of 2017 was filed by the present accused applicant which was disposed of by this Court with a direction that if applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, her prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in the light of the law laid down in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and it was further ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for the period of 45 days from that date.
It is further reveals from the perusal of the record that in the Civil Suit Nos. 442 of 2016 & 443 of 2016 pending in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Saharanpur, one compromise was filed by the parties to the suits on 24.04.2017. It is further reveals that the father-in-law of the present accused applicant and the informant of the case Rajender Karanwal died meanwhile on 02.07.2022 and the said compromise was not certified so far. It is reveals from the perusal of the record that the accused applicant has not been declared absconder by the Court. It reveals from the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant so far.
In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-
1. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.
4. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
Order Date :- 20.4.2023
Shivangi
