Allahabad High Court
Sheetal Sikka And Another vs State Of U.P And Another on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12378 of 2022
Applicant :- Sheetal Sikka And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Vashisth
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.1101 of 2022 dated 13.7.2019 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicants have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. As per allegations in the complaint, the applicant no.1 is the employee of Equitas Small Finance Bank situated at Chandani Chowk and applicant no.2 is her husband and they in connivance with Shekhar Sachdeva were involved in cheating people on the pretext of providing them loan. The applicant no.1 being a bank employee received a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- in cash as processing fee for sanctioning a loan of Rs. 35 lakhs.
The counsel for the applicants further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants as the applicants have neither prepared any forged document nor deceived the complainant. The applicants have already been bailed out vide order dated 30.3.2022 in the Complaint Case No. 4521 of 2021 U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-14 to the affidavit. The counsel submits that as there is apprehension of arrest of the applicants, therefore, the applicants seek anticipatory bail. In support of his submission, the counsel for the applicants has also relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in Kamlesh and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (2019) SCC Online SC 1822.
It is also submitted that co-accused Anjali and Shekhar have already been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench and the case of these applicants is on same footing.
The counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants are ready to cooperate in the trial and undertakes that if they are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of the same.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that prima facie, case is made out against the applicants. Thus, the application is liable to be rejected.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest, the applicants- Sheetal Sikka & Gaurav Sikka involved in the aforesaid complaint case shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicants 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;
(2) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(3) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.
(6) In case, the applicants misuse 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.
(7) The applicants 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 his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
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 applicants.
Order Date :- 11.1.2023
Ashok Gupta
