Allahabad High Court
Kavita Singh vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102587
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3833 of 2023
Applicant :- Kavita Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Kavita Singh in Case Crime No.407 of 2016, under Sections 323, 380, 504, 506, 420, 406, 427, 120-B IPC, Police Station - Cholapur, District ? Varanasi.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
4. F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Ram Raj Singh with the allegation that he along with her daughter-in-law Kavita, the present accused applicant, went to the Bank for opening an account there and co-accused Ashok Chubey obtained his signature upon various papers. The informant is very old person with weak vision. His passbook was kept by the present applicant with her and a huge amount from the account of the informant was withdrawn by the present accused applicant and later on, he came to know about the fraudulent act of the applicant and also the fact that a joint account was opened in the name of applicant and the informant himself. At this, F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a lady and she is innocent and has apprehension of her arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. She has been falsely implicated in the matter. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It is further submitted that the applicant has a matrimonial dispute with her husband, who happens to be the son of the informant. It is next submitted that an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.- 37012 of 2018 was moved before this Court by the present applicant and other accused persons wherein no relief was granted to them, but however it was ordered that for a period of 45 days, no coercive action shall be taken against them and they were granted 20 days' time to appear before the court concerned and apply for bail vide order dated 10.10.2018. It is further submitted that even after filing of the charge-sheet way back in 2018 and despite knowledge of the same, the present applicant did not appear before the court concerned and non-bailable warrant has been issued and is operative against the present applicant.
6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
7. In this matter, it reveals that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned.
8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
9. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.
10. However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.
11. It is further directed that the learned court concerned, while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.
12. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 9.5.2023
ss
