Smt. Savitri Devi vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 25092 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Savitri Devi vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123917
 
Court No. - 64
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48540 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Savitri Devi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh,Lal Mani Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. L.M. Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Smt. Savitri Devi, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0307 of 2020, under Sections 420, 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Karanda, District-Ghazipur during the pendency of trial i.e. Special Sessions Trial 364 of 2022 (State Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi and Others), under Sections 420, 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Karanda, District-Ghazipur now pending in the Court of Special Judge (PC Act), Court No.-2, Varanasi.

4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 02.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 59311 of 2022 (Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 02.01.2023 is reproduced herein under:-

"The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in F.I.R. No. 0307 of 2020 under sections 420, 409 IPC and Section 13 (1) (A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Karanda, District Ghazipur.

The accused applicant was village pradhan of Gram Panchyat Gosandipur, Block-Karanda at relevant time. She along with her three sons and the Gram Panchyat Secretary withdrew the amount of Rs. 80,81,271/- and misappropriated the said amount which was meant for the welfare scheme and development of the concerned village Panchyat. The accused-applicant and his sons had withdrawn the amount in their own name which is evident from the facts as stated in the FIR. From the facts, as mentioned in the F.I.R., it is evident that the accused-applicant along with her sons and village panchyat Secretary have allegedly committed criminal breach of trust and offences under Prevention of Corruption Act while withdrawing the amount meant for development scheme and upliftment of villagers and used the said amount for their own purposes.

Looking at the gravity of the offence, prima facie evidence available against the accused and the mammoth nature of corruption, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused applicant on bail at this stage, therefore, the bail application is hereby rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and record the evidence of the fact witnesses within a period of six months.

Once the evidence of of fact witnesses is recorded, the accused-applicant may revive the bail plea, if she is so advised."

5. Mr. L.M. Singh, the learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused yet she is liable to be enlarged on bail.

6. With reference to the record, it is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the FIR giving rise to this repeat application for bail was lodged on 20.11.2020. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted on 07.10.2021.

7. After submission of aforementioned police report, cognizance was taken upon same by Court concerned, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and charge sheeted accused were simultaneously summoned by Court concerned, vide Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 30.03.2022. However, charges were framed against charge sheeted accused, vide framing of charge order dated 06.02.2024. Applicant was arrested on 05.11.2022. As such, on date, she has undergone almost one year and 9 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. Furthermore, since applicant is an old lady aged about 70 years, therefore, by reason of above, she is entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. In the charge sheet so submitted against applicant, there are as many as 8 prosecution witnesses nominated therein. Out of 8 prosecution witnesses, 4 prosecution witnesses are the witnesses of fact, who have already deposed before Court below. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality, it cannot be said that applicant shall hamper the course of trial or he shall terrorize the witnesses. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that no good or justifiable ground exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused and is alleged to have embezzled/misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,67,727/-. He, therefore, submits that offence complained of against applicant is not only illegal but also immoral. As such, applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. He has also referred to the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by this Court to point out the nature and gravity of offence. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

9. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that applicant is an old lady now aged about 70 years, therefore, by reason of above, she is entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, which is one year and 9 months, in the police report so submitted, 8 prosecution witnesses have been nominated, out of 8 prosecution witnesses so nominated in the charge sheet, there are 4 prosecution witnesses of fact, who have already deposed before Court below, therefore, the pre-condition for filing the repeat application as stipulated in the order passed on the Ist bail application stands satisfied, in view of above, in case, applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality, it cannot be said that applicant shall either hamper the course of trial or shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present repeat application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

10. Accordingly, this repeat application for bail is allowed.

11. Let the applicant-Smt. Savitri Devi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN 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.

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

12. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

Order Date :- 1.8.2024

Vinay