Allowed

Smt. Seema Rani Agarwal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2022ABAIL/1480/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the applicant in a cheating and forgery case. The matter was settled through mediation, with only a civil dispute remaining. The Court found a case made out for bail despite the opposing counsel's objections.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and conditions regarding cooperation and non-interference.

Smt. Seema Rani Agarwal Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1480 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Seema Rani Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Deep Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Verma,Sushil Kumar Rao

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of complainant.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0474 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

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. As per prosecution version, the applicant and her husband have agreed to sell their residential property to the informant against consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and that informant has paid Rs.25 lakhs as part payment. Learned counsel submitted that husband of applicant has passed away. Earlier this matter was referred to mediation by this Court and both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and in accordance with settlement, the applicant has already paid Rs.23 lakhs to the informant through bank draft. Learned counsel submitted that matter in dispute is purely civil

¶9

in nature and both the parties have amicably settled the dispute. Report of the mediation is also on record, wherein, it has been mentioned that both parties have settled the dispute and an amount of Rs.23 lakhs has already been paid to the informant. The applicant is lady having no criminal antecedents. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and she would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or 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.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

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.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principles 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 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. Seema Rani Agarwal involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released

¶15

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 below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(i) the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(ii) 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.11.2022 Neeraj

¶21

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.05 14:29:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Seema Rani Agarwal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Seema Rani Agarwal 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

Ashok Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sujeet Kumar Goswami Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alam Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.and Another

Abhilash Singh Vs State of U.P.