Allahabad High Court

Smt. Rakhi Garg And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 August, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133896
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26267 of 2025 (Leading)
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Rakhi Garg And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Dwivedi,Ram Prakash Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
And
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26268 of 2025 (Connected) 
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Rakhi Garg And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Dwivedi,Ram Prakash Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Heard Sri R.P. Dwivedi learned counsel for the applicants in the leading and the connection applications and Sri J.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

2. Earlier the applicants herein in the leading application had preferred Application U/S 482 No.41980 of 2024, M/s S.S. Infrarental Pvt. Ltd. and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another which came to be decided on 13.12.2024 thereafter correction application came to be decided on 6.1.2025. Both the orders quoted herein under:-

1. Heard Sri Raghwendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 21.05.2024 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.5, Agra as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.30394 of 2024, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station - Hariparwat, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Agra.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. He wants to surrender before the court below and applies for bail. He further submits that this Court may be pleased to direct the court concerned to consider the bail application of the applicant expeditiously within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present application is disposed of with the direction that in case, the applicant surrenders before the Court concerned and applies for bail within three weeks from today, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the court below, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

5. For reference paras 100 to 100.11 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) are being quoted as under;

"100. In conclusion, we would like to issue certain directions. These directions are meant for the investigating agencies and also for the courts. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions, which may be subject to State amendments:

100.1. The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails.

100.2. The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449]. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.

100.3. The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.

100.4. All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate Standing Orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41-A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 7-2-2018 in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448] and the Standing Order issued by Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41-A of the Code.

100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.

100.6. There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this Court in Siddharth [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423].

100.7. The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously.

100.8. The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release.

100.9. While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind.

100.10. An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436-A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by this Court in Bhim Singh [Bhim Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 13 SCC 605 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 663] , followed by appropriate orders.

100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.

6. It is needless to mention that the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773 has also approved for grant of interim bail till disposal of bail application. Para 6 of the Satender Kumar Antil (supra) decided on 07.10.2021 is being quoted as under:

"6. We may also notice an aspect submitted by Mr Luthra that while issuing notice to consider bail, the trial court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest. On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the bail application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the statutory provisions."

7. For a period of three weeks from today or till disposal of bail application of applicant, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

Ref:- Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 2 of 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant on correction application.

2. By way of instant correction application, prayer has been made by counsel for the applicant that the order dated 13.12.2024 may be corrected by mentioning the "Complaint Case No. 30394/ 2023" in place of "Complaint Case No. 30394/2024 in the fourth line of second paragraph of the order and the same correction may be permitted to be carried out in the prayer of application.

3. The prayer so made is accepted and accordingly, the correction application is allowed.

In the order dated 13.12.2024, "Complaint Case No. 30394/2024" in the fourth line of second paragraph of the order shall be read as "Complaint Case No. 30394/2023".

4. Order dated 13.12.2024 stands corrected accordingly. This order shall be treated as a part of the order dated 13.12.2024.

5. As the correction has been made today therefore, one week's further time granted to the applicant to appear before the court below in pursuance of the order dated 13.12.2024 subject to the cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the applicant before the Legal Services Authority, District Court, Agra.

3. As regards the connected application is concerned, the same has been preferred wherein challenge has been raised to set aside the Summoning order dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vth, Agra in Complaint Case No. 30395 of 2023 (Arun Sondhi Vs. M/s. S.S. Infrarentals Pvt. Ltd. and others), U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station-Hari Parvat, District- Agra as well as quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 30395 of 2023 (Arun Sondhi Vs. M/s. S.S. Infrarentals Pvt. Ltd. and others), U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station-Hari Parvat, District Agra, the applicants herein had also approached this Court while filing an Application U/S 482 No.41983 of 2024, M/s S.S. Infrarental Pvt. Ltd. and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another which came to be decided on 13.12.2024 thereafter correction application came to be decided on 6.1.2025. Both the orders quoted herein under:-

1. Heard Sri Raghwendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 21.05.2024 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.5, Agra as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.30395 of 2024, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station - Hariparwat, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Agra.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. He wants to surrender before the court below and applies for bail. He further submits that this Court may be pleased to direct the court concerned to consider the bail application of the applicant expeditiously within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present application is disposed of with the direction that in case, the applicant surrenders before the Court concerned and applies for bail within three weeks from today, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the court below, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

5. For reference paras 100 to 100.11 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) are being quoted as under;

"100. In conclusion, we would like to issue certain directions. These directions are meant for the investigating agencies and also for the courts. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions, which may be subject to State amendments:

100.1. The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails.

100.2. The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449]. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.

100.3. The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.

100.4. All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate Standing Orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41-A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 7-2-2018 in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448] and the Standing Order issued by Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41-A of the Code.

100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.

100.6. There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this Court in Siddharth [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423].

100.7. The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously.

100.8. The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release.

100.9. While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind.

100.10. An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436-A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by this Court in Bhim Singh [Bhim Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 13 SCC 605 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 663] , followed by appropriate orders.

100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.

6. It is needless to mention that the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773 has also approved for grant of interim bail till disposal of bail application. Para 6 of the Satender Kumar Antil (supra) decided on 07.10.2021 is being quoted as under:

"6. We may also notice an aspect submitted by Mr Luthra that while issuing notice to consider bail, the trial court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest. On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the bail application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the statutory provisions."

7. For a period of three weeks from today or till disposal of bail application of applicant, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

Ref:- Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 2 of 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant on correction application.

2. By way of instant correction application, prayer has been made by counsel for the applicant that the order dated 13.12.2024 may be corrected by mentioning the "Complaint Case No. 30395/ 2023" in place of "Complaint Case No. 30395/2024 in the fourth line of second paragraph of the order and the same correction may be permitted to be carried out in the prayer of application.

3. The prayer so made is accepted and accordingly, the correction application is allowed.

In the order dated 13.12.2024, "Complaint Case No. 30395/2024" in the fourth line of second paragraph of the order shall be read as "Complaint Case No. 30395/2023".

4. Order dated 13.12.2024 stands corrected accordingly. This order shall be treated as a part of the order dated 13.12.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants in the leading as well as the connected application has submitted that technically speaking the present applications are the second applications questioning the summoning orders but the applicants submits that the liberty be accorded to the applicants to raise on legal and factual issues before the court below while contesting the trial with respect to the fact that the cheque in question was drawn by the Directors on behalf of company but the company has not been summoned. He also submits that even there has been no compliance of the provisions of Section 141 of the N.I. Act particularly when there is no recital in the complaint that at the time of the offence being committed by the company, the applicants herein were responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company. Reliance has been placed upon the judgement in the case of Susela Padmavathy Amma vs. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited in Criminal Appeal Nos.1577-1578 of 2024.

5. It is also contended that there happens to be the manipulation in the date and the figures in the cheque and the cheques were of the year 2019 but they were deployed as a tool for getting it dishonoured in the year 2023 and the manged period would also come to an end.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that it is always open for the applicants to raise all legal and factual issues while contesting the trial.

7. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record.

8. Since the present application happens to be the second application questioning the summoning order and the entire proceedings but the applicants themselves as per their own saying seeks to contest the trial while taking all legal and factual grounds thus the applications stand disposed of granting liberty to the applicants to raise all legal and factual grounds which have been argued herein above amongst others grounds and the Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 7.8.2025

piyush