Allahabad High Court
Meera Prakash Phadanis vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 4 June, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34534
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5093 of 2025
Applicant :- Meera Prakash Phadanis
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Prabhat Sharma,Vijay Kumar Asthana
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
According to the prosecution case, the informant, Satyendra Pratap, along with his cousin Pasant Kumar and colleagues Pravesh Kumar Singh and Siya Verma, invested amounts of ?56,43,000, ?8,00,000, ?8,00,000, and ?5,00,000 respectively into the bank account of Rahul Verma. Rahul was introduced to them as being part of a travel desk by Aniruddh alias Aniruddh Hoshing, whom they had met at Hotel Vista. During this meeting, Aniruddh presented himself as a Joint General Manager with the Government of India, showing a visiting card as proof. Aniruddh informed the informant and his associates that the Government of India had launched investment schemes in the tourism and railway sectors, claiming that the general public could earn profits by investing in these schemes.
A party was alleged to have been organized in the night of 19.12.2022 at the same hotel, where Aniruddh introduced his associates Meera Phadanis, who claimed to be a Private Secretary in the Ministries of Railways, Tourism, and Textiles, and Rahul Sharma, who was presented as an accountant. Likewise another party was scheduled on 22.12.2022, where they further spoke about investment opportunities in the railway, tourism, and sports ministries.
It is further alleged that on the basis of the representations made by Aniruddh, the informant and his associates transferred the entire investment into Rahul Verma's bank account (Account No. 20021575556, IFSC Code FIN00001001). However, after receiving the funds, Aniruddh, Meera Phadanis, and Rahul failed to provide any returns and misappropriated the entire amount. The informant later gathered information that the individuals involved were fraudsters and several criminal cases are registered against them in Maharashtra and they have usurped approximately ?10 crore.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the only allegation against the applicant is that she introduced herself as ?Niyukti Adhyaksh, Paryatan Nideshak Salahkar Samiti,? and there is no material in the prosecution case to suggest that any amount was transferred into her account. Moreover, there are no allegations of forgery against her. A charge sheet has been filed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 406 IPC.
It has been further submitted that charge sheet could not have been filed by the investigating officer under Section 420 and 406 IPC simultaneously. He has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that the applicant is accomplice of the main accused.
On due consideration to the judgment of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.(supra) and role assigned to the applicant as well as considering the fact that the applicant is a lady of 58 years; the offences are triable by magistrate; the applicant admittedly has not received any amount in her account and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Meera Prakash Phadanis involved in Case Crime No.446/2023, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/406 IPC Police Station - Sushant Golf City, District - Lucknow be released on bail 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 4.6.2025/R.C.
