Hon'ble Siddharth, J. allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Reeta Balwani in a case involving cheque dishonour and forgery offences, directing her release on bond with conditions based on the Sushila Aggarwal precedent.
Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to the specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4029 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Reeta Balwani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate/ Uday Karan Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Uday Karan Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Smt. Reeta Balwani, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 842 of 2017, under Section- 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun, during pendency of trial.
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.
By the order dated 29.07.2020, learned A.G.A. was directed to obtain instructions in this matter. Again on 01.09.2020, time was granted for the aforesaid purpose but no counter affidavit or instructions have been received.
F.I.R. contains the fact that cheque of Rs. 15,70,000/- was given by the accused applicant in favour of the father of the informant, Mansukh Lal which is denied by the learned counsel for the applicant as it is pleaded by him that applicant is innocent. She has nothing to do with the present offence. Her husband, Dilip Rai Balwani has already been granted regular bail vide order dated 19.09.2018 by coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33767 of 2018. The applicant has definite 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.
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and her antecedents, the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail 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.
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:-
Order Date :- 15.12.2020 KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Followed¶12
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Reeta Balwani
State of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
