Allahabad High Court
Omwati Jindal vs State Of U.P. on 18 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166758
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8959 of 2023
Applicant :- Omwati Jindal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Lal,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.461 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District- Bulandshahr.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a counterblast case, earlier she has lodged an FIR against the relatives of the informant under Section 302 I.P.C. She submitted that incident took place on 06.04.2011 where as FIR was lodged on 19.04.2017 against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Court for quashing of the said FIR by way of filing a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7866 of 2017 and this Court vide order dated 11.05.2017 granted interim protected to the applicant till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, charge sheet was submitted on 19.12.2017 and after submission of charge sheet, the applicant was summoned by the court below on 27.1.2018 and against the summoning order the applicant approached this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 7355 of 2018 and this Court vide order dated 7.3.2018 stayed the further proceedings till further order thereafter, vide order dated 24.01.2023 stay was vacated by the court below in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299. Thereafter, the applicant moved anticipatory bail application before the court below which was rejected vide order dated 07.07.2023, hence the present anticipatory bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon paragraph no.10 of the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 57 of 2023, which reads as under:-
"10. In Kamlesh and another versus State of Rajasthan and another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1822, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed against an order passed by Rajasthan High Court whereby an application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court only on the ground that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR, has already been rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"5. We are of the view that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. High Court ought to have considered the application on merits. The fact that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for quashing was not conclusive and could not be the reason for rejecting the application."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant is a lady and she is a serious patient of breast cancer since 2008 which is at advanced stage and also suffering from diabetes and has disc slip problem. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, she is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Omwati Jindal, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vii) 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 her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
8. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 18.8.2023
Krishna*
