Smt Charanjeet Kaur vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 25552 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181879
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9954 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Smt Charanjeet Kaur
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Singh
 
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. 512 of 2014, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B, 506 IPC, P.S. Swar, District Rampur during the pendency of trial.

3. As per prosecution case, one Devendra Singh son of Avtar Singh met the informant and said that two partners of Shri Dashmesh Stone Crusher, Manpur North, Police Station Swar, District Ramupar, namely, Jagpal Singh son of Gurmukh Singh and Daljit Singh son of Anokh Singh are equal shareholders of 50% and Jagpal Singh has withdrawn his 50% share as per the Partnership Deed dated 22-11-2010 and asked the informant to take his share. It is alleged that the applicant who is wife of co-accused Daljit Singh, also gave assurance to the informant, on which a partnership deed was written in Tehsil Swar dated 16-02-2013, according to which 40% share of the informant, 20 % share of Devendra Singh and 40% share of Daljeet Singh was found fixed in the said stone crusher. Daljit Singh and Devendra Singh are said to have taken Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from the informant and after making some deductions, wrote Rs. 1,46,68,010/- on the partnership firm. It is further alleged that after this, co-accused Devendra Singh told the informant that he wants to sell his 20% share to Harjinder Singh and co-accused Daljit Singh wants to sell his 35% share to Dinesh Kumar Mishra. On 18-01-2014, a partnership deed was typed by co-accused persons, namely, Daljeet Singh and Devendra Singh in Tehsil Swar, on which the informant put his signature at the request of the accused persons and it was registered. It is further alleged that on 03-02-14, co-accused Daljit Singh came to the informant and took Rs. 50 lakh from the informant for purchasing raw materials, after that he did not give any share of the profit in the said stone crusher to the informant. The informant has no information about the documents etc. The informant told the accused that he had given Rs 2 crore in the stone crusher and the informant had 40% share thereafter on 10-08-2014, the accused told the informant at the stone crusher that money was to be extorted from him and now the informant will not get any share and the partnership deed dated 16-02-2013 is fake and forged and in case he would ask for further money, he would be killed.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that she has committed any crime, she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant/accused has not fraudulently obtained any amount from the informant nor is she a party to the partnership deed in question, nor is she the owner of the stone crusher nor does she has any shares. The matter is of civil nature. And it is only a matter of transaction of money between co-accused Daljeet Singh and informant. The applicant/accused has no criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a lady aged about 49 years.

5. It is further submitted that a compromise took place between the parties on 3.1.2016 in which the informant had admitted that he had obtained all money from the accused persons and there is no dispute between them. It is further submitted that earlier applicant has filed 482 Cr.P.C. application being Criminal Misc Application No. 36990 of 2015, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2015 giving liberty to the applicants to file the compromise application before the Court concerned. If any such application is filed before the court concerned within a period of two weeks, the court concerned will issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise.

6. It is further submitted that pursuant to order of this Court application filed the application before the court below on which notices were issued to the parties for appearance but they did not turn up before the court below as they are said to have settled abroad and till date they never appeared before the Court below.

7. On the other hand learned AGA opposed the bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. It is further submitted that in the matter charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and she is avoiding her presence before the court below and coercive steps have also been initiated against her, therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no sufficient basis for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused and the anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected.

8. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he 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.

9. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Smt Charanjeet Kaur 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:-

(1) 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;

(2) 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; and

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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 his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

10. 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.

11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 20.9.2023

RavindraKSingh