Allahabad High Court
Shanti Devi vs State Of U.P. on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169976
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12731 of 2021
Applicant :- Shanti Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Singh,Vijay Singh Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard 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. 307 of 2010, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station- Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant is an old lady aged about 75 years and she is suffering from old age ailments. He submitted that her name came into light after 11 years of the incident. He further submitted that the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant is false and no such incident took place. He further submitted that Section 409 I.P.C., provides the criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent but in the present case the applicant is a private person and as such, no case is made out against the applicant under Section 409 I.P.C. and therefore, the present anticipatory bail application is liable to be allowed. He further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
5. 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Shanti Devi, involved in the aforesaid 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 she 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.
7. 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.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023
Krishna*
