Allahabad High Court
Smt Sonia Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82916
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4342 of 2024
Applicant :- Smt. Sonia Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Kumar Pathak
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, 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.12 of 2023 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Gulawati, District Bulandshahr with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have taken Rs.8,13,000/- on the promise that he shall be given an appointment in ordinance factory, Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The case of N.I. Act has been converted into criminal one as already Complaint Case No.10281 of 2022 is pending before the Court of C.J.M., Hapur. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has been subjected to double jeopardy and the false allegations of getting the informant appointed in ordinance factory have been levelled.
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 criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as she has been enlarged on bail in both the cases. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest. Learned counsel for 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 counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have 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 theSupreme Court.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Smt. Sonia Singh 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 concerned 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 :- 8.5.2024
Ravi Kant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
