Allahabad High Court
Smt. Geeta @ Pinki vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 359 of 2023
Applicant :- Smt. Geeta @ Pinki
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Smt. Geeta @ Pinki seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2015, under sections- 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station- Nayagaon, District- Etah.
3. As per the prosecution case, the present applicant- Geeta Devi wife of Ashok Kumar has a sister named Pinki; Pinki Devi's husband has been working in Army; in the year 2007, Geeta Devi changed her name to Pinki Devi by manipulating the same in the voter Id card and used the academic papers of Pinki Devi (her sister) to obtain a job as Aanganwaadi worker.
4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that she did not manipulate any of her documents; her name has always been Geeta Devi @ Pinki; the name of her real sister was not Pinki but Rinki; the applicant has submitted certain papers (school/college record) to prove her points. It is further argued that the first informant has lodged this F.I.R. to save himself from an earlier complaint against him.
5. The application for anticipatory bail is vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.A. highlighting certain admitted and non-admitted facts as below:-
(I) In this case after investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted about 7 years ago on 04.10.2015.
(II) Admittedly, the applicant moved a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.18182 of 2015 and was granted protection till submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; this order was passed on 30.07.2015 and the applicant has failed to appear before court below even after a lapse of seven years since filing of the charge-sheet.
(III) The applicant filed an Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.24597 of 2016 in which an order as below was passed by the High Court on 17.08.2016:-
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
However, this application is disposed of with the hope and trust that the court below shall proceed in the light of the observation made by this Court in the judgment dated 8.7.2016 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15609 of 2016 (Brahm Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) as the case may be."
It is contended that despite the Court's expectation as expressed in so many words, the applicant failed to honor the same.
(IV) The applicant filed yet another Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.23730 of 2022 in which a very detailed order was passed on 12.09.2022 and the applicant was given a protection for 30 days, so that he can avail the benefit thereof and appear before the court below but he again failed to honor the order of the Court and has now applied for anticipatory bail at a very belated stage.
(V) The applicant moved a discharge application before the Judicial Magistrate, Etah through counsel and the same was dismissed by order dated 28.03.2018 (paper no.36). While passing that order, the learned Magistrate observed that the applicant moved the discharge application through counsel only without ensuring her personal appearance as is provided by law relating to bails.
(VI) The above facts are enough to show that the applicant has no intention to abide by the law and is trying to distort the things and avoiding the process of law by adopting different tactics.
(VII) It is further pointed out that as far as the merit of the case is concerned, the applicant's sister herself submitted an affidavit that the applicant indeed used the academic certificate belonging to the deponent Pinki Devi.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.
7. Hence, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
8. However, any of the observations made herein shall not be taken as a comment on merits of the case and the learned trial court shall be at liberty to form its own opinion, on the basis of material before him, at any stage of the case.
9. Copy of the order shall be intimated to the court concerned and the court below shall provide immediately with the case to ensure appearance of the applicant.
Order Date :- 4.4.2023
Saif
