Allowed

Km Laxmi Kushwah v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2020ABAIL/2187/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under S. 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant alleged false implication in a case involving misuse of Aadhaar for food grain misappropriation. Bail granted subject to conditions from Sushila Aggarwal guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on anticipatory bail subject to personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions including passport surrender and availability during trial proceedings.

Km Laxmi Kushwah Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2187 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Km Laxmi Kushwah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶7

This exemption application is allowed.

¶8

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Km Laxmi Kushwah, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 984 of 2018, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C & Section 3/7 E.C. Act & Section 66-D I.T. Act, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, DistrictAgra, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶11

The allegation against the applicant is that she is a fair price shop dealer and she has misused the adhaar authentication system by feeding edited adhaar card number and completing the transaction by biometric machine for the purpose of misappropriating the food grains meant for supply to public distribution system. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She is not fair price shop dealer and her adhaar card was misused by some fair price shop dealer. There is fault on the part of the supply department and she has been falsely implicated in this case. She has no criminal history to her credit. She has definite

¶12

apprehension that she may be arrested by the police any time. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶13

Hence, the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and her antecedents 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 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2609 of 2020. 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.

¶14

Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

The applicant shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial court;

¶16

The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned trial court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial court;

¶17

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;

¶18

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶19

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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 her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶22

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶23

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.12.2020 Rohit

Km Laxmi Kushwah v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km Laxmi Kushwah v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kushwaha @ Viru Vs State of U.P.

Gulfam Navi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Avdhesh Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Nadim Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Singh Vs State of U.P.

Riyaz Mohd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others