Allahabad High Court
Surabhi Srivastava vs State Of U.P. on 18 October, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202187
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48941 of 2019
Applicant :- Surabhi Srivastava
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Vyas,Jitendra Prasad Mishra,Samit Gopal(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Bhushan Singhal
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Heard Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 315 of 2019, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be President of the society in question and the informant was elected President subsequent to him. The applicant is stated to have issued cheques and got the amount released of the society without any authorization, despite the informant being elected on the said post.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant was the authorized signatory to the said cheques and it were not found to have been fraudulently issued as the bank has not released the amount without authority. The authorized signatory of the cheques was not changed, as such, he had acted as a bona fide person. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit.
6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that she has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Surabhi Srivastava be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 18.10.2023/ Vikas
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
