The Single Judge allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an accused in a cheating case involving a civil dispute over a flat sale, emphasizing the civil nature of the dispute and the co-accused's bail.
Anticipatory bail granted upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3577 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt Meenu Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Munesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Sisodia
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.140 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Beeta-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
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. According to prosecution version, applicant and her husband Sanjay Kumar Gautam (co-accused) have agreed to sale their flat to the complainant against consideration of Rs.49,50,000/- and they have taken an amount of Rs.34,20,000/- from the complainant but despite fixing several dates, they did not execute the sale-deed and it was also alleged that the said flat was already mortgaged by bank. Learned counsel submitted that after agreement to sale, the complainant could not arrange the remaining amount of saledeed on the date fixed for sale-deed and thereafter, several dates were fixed but the complainant could not arrange the money and thus, sale-deed could not be executed. Learned counsel submitted that alleged deal for sale of the flat has been made by
the husband of applicant, namely, Sanjay Kumar Gautam, who has already been granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the copy of which is available on record. It was further submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the complainant has the remedy of filing of civil suit for specific performance of the agreement. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and 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.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.
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.
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.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicant- Smt Meenu Gautam 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 below concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(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;
(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
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.
Order Date :- 1.8.2022 Neeraj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.08.02 09:56:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a case for anticipatory bail is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶10
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt Meenu Gautam
State of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
