Allowed

Sunita Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021ABAIL/2700/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to Sunita Tiwari under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating case alleging fraudulent appointment. The order stipulates conditions including surrender of passport and surrender of self at the trial court for specific dates.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Sunita Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2700 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sunita Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sunita Tiwari , with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 689 of 2020, under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, Police Station- Sahjanawa, District-Gorakhpur during pendency of trial.

¶7

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.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant that she obtained appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of fraudulent certificates and marksheets.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has no criminal history to her credit. No enquiry was initiated nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant before implication in the present case. Her credentials were genuine. The applicant has definite apprehension that she may be arrested by the police any time.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on

¶12

anticipatory bail in this case 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.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant shall 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:-

¶14

The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

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.

¶16

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;

¶17

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.

¶18

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 .

¶19

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 condition is deliberate or without sufficient

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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. Order Date :- 10.2.2021 SS

Sunita Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohd. Shareef Vs State of U.P.

Malay Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyanshu @ Rajit Thakur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Riyasat and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. and Another