Allowed

Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2022ABAIL/12372/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court detailed serious allegations of cheating and forgery involving disputed property transactions but held that, based on the settled principles of law and the specific facts, a case for bail was made out.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding arrest, trial appea

Smt. Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12372 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sushila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Singh,Trivikram Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.62 of 2021, under Sections 147, 420, 406, 506, 504, 417, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Cantt, District Varanasi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. The allegation made against applicant is that she has agreed to sell the disputed property to the informant and that the informant has paid Rs. 15 lakhs through cheque and Rs. 10 lakhs in cash and a registered agreement to sell was executed but thereafter, applicant did not execute the sale-deed in favour of informant and rather she has sold that land to one Kawal Dhari Devi. Learned counsel submitted that in fact at the time of executing sale-deed in favour of Kawal Dhari Devi, informant was present and she was shown as confirming party on the sale-deed and thus, she was well aware about the sale-deed. It was further stated that at the time of executing sale-deed, the whole amount of informant

¶8

was paid. It was submitted that applicant is a lady aged about 75 years. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and she would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the allegations that applicant has paid the entire amount of informant, is thoroughly false. There is no documentary proof regarding payment to informant. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that at the time of execution of sale-deed in favour of alleged Kamal Dhari Devi, the signatures of informant were obtained by way of cheating and later on she was shown as witness but later on that paper was withdrawn and another witness was shown.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without

¶12

expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Smt. Sushila Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶19

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.11.2022 Neeraj

¶22

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.01 12:47:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushila Devi 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

Nandram Vs State of U.P.

Sagir Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahmad Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Puwar @ Sanjay Puwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naveen Vs State of U.P.

Faeem and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others