Dismissed

Rekha Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2021ABAIL/5933/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. concerning charges of cheating and offences under the SC/ST Act. The court rejected the prayer, finding that the applicant's continued active role in the company established a case for the court to exercise its discretion against granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected, denying the grant of anticipatory bail.

Rekha Devi Vs State of U.P. — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5933 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rekha Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 367 of 2020, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B/34/504/506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Cantt, District Varanasi, during the pendency of the investigation.

¶7

From the record it transpires that the applicant was appointed as Director of one Casita Infra Project Developers Ltd. in the year 2014. However, she resigned from the directorship of the company on 25.08.2014, copy of the Form 11 is annexed as annexure No. 6 to the affidavit to the bail application. She has not been named in the FIR, however, one of the collection agent of the company on 20.05.2020 had named the applicant alongwith three other persons as the persons who were looking after work of the company as well as the deposits made in the company.

¶8

Sri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that applicant has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in another case crime No. 342 of 2020 lodged against her for the same action. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.

¶9

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants by contending that the allegations levelled against the applicants are serious in nature and applicant has criminal history of two cases for the same company though she has been released on bail in other two matters and, as such, present anticipatory bail application is

¶10

liable to be rejected by this Court.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court finds that applicant was initially one of the promoter/directors of the company which had taken lot of money from the people, though she had resigned in the year 2014 but she still is actively participating in day to day affairs of the company as in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the agent of the company Pawan Kumar Gupta merely reveals her role. On due consideration of the aforesaid, I am of the view that no case for exercising discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶12

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.6.2021 Shekhar

Rekha Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rampal Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra Vs State of U.P.

Azam @ Aazeem Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arun Kumar Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Pal Singh @ Sumit and Another Vs State of U.P.