Allahabad High Court
Babita Agrawal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104597
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4770 of 2023
Applicant :- Babita Agrawal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Bhushan Paul,Saurabh Paul
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Babita Agrawal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 364 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she 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. It is further submitted that no offence has been committed by the applicant. Money taken from the informant has already been returned to her. It is further submitted that during investigation only offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC have been found to be made out and rest offences alleged in the F.I.R. have not been established. The investigation of the case is complete and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared proclaimed offender. She was cooperative during course of investigation. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
5. In this matter, it has been alleged that in the Company M/s Kunal Structural Developers and Industries Private Limited four accused persons including the present applicant are Directors. An agreement was executed between the informant and the accused persons for the sale of some property valuing Rs. 40,95,000/- and Rs. 5,95,000/- were taken as advance and subsequently the Company sold the aforesaid property to another person and also with fraudulent intention by playing fraud again taken Rs. 5,95,000/- from the informant through RTGS, however, subsequently, Rs. 2,95,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- were returned through RTGS but no sale deed was executed so far. F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120-B, 147 IPC but after investigation charge sheet against three accused persons has been filed for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. It further reveals that the offences levelled against the applicant are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. During course of investigation, the applicant has cooperated with the Investigating Officer. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Hence, 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.
9. 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.
10. On the basis of request of the learned counsel for the applicant, it is further directed that the 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.
11. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
safi
