Allahabad High Court
Smt. Shyama Devi vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165013
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8462 of 2023
Applicant :- Smt. Shyama Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Shukla,Maneesh Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Digvijay Singh
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, 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.092 of 2023, registered under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC at Police Station- Majhola, District Moradabad with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the son of the applicant is stated to have taken an amount of Rs.21,50,500/- from several persons including the informant for getting them loan sanctioned in their names for the house after a rebate of 10%. The applicant, who happens to be the mother of the main accused person Sachin Sharma, alongwith her another son Anoop Kumar Sharma are stated to have threatened the informant and are even stated to have abetted him in procuring the fake documents.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is a lady and has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to her relationship with the main accused person Sachin Sharma and her brother Anoop Kumar Sharma. The final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted against 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.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that a writ petition was filed by the applicant and it was stated in it that she is ready to return the amount to the informant. The applicant was hand in glove with the co-accused persons as she has herself stated that her son Sachin Sharma was an employee of Moradabad Development Authority, as such she has abetted and helped in the crime committed by her son Sachin Sharma.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., taking into consideration the fact that no money has been transferred to the account of the applicant and the main accused person is Sachin Sharma, 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.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Smt. Shyama Devi 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 concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 17.8.2023
Ravi Kant
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
