Allowed

Manorma Devi Alias Manorama Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2023/122/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court allowed second anticipatory bail application in a cheating and forgery case, holding that prior maintenance under Sec 482 does not bar fresh Sec 438 application. Bail granted based on applicant's innocence, bonafide purchase, and cooperation despite earlier rejection.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on personal bond and two sureties of Rs.50,000 each subject to standard conditions.

Manorma Devi Alias Manorama Singh Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 122 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Manorma Devi Alias Manorama Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kirti Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and Sri Pramod Kumar Verma, learned Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of informant/ complainant. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

¶7

This is the second anticipatory bail application as first anticipatory bail application has been rejected being not pressed on 03.01.2023 with the liberty to file another application. Such order has been enclosed as Annexure No.9 with the application.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending her arrest in Criminal Case No.6360 of 2019 (New No.1105 of 2022), Case Crime No.173 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 447, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station - Lambhua, District - Sultanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel has stated that the present applicant is a bonafide purchaser with consideration of the property in question and the allegations against her in the FIR are misconceived. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.8 of the application, whereby coaccused Sanjay Singh and Ram Sajeevan Yadav, who are the marginal witnesses of the transaction in question, have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court. The present applicant being the lady, her liberty may be protected. Since charge sheet has been filed, therefore, the applicant undertakes that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail if granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶10

Per contra , learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant has raised objection to the effect that after filing of the charge sheet against the present applicant, she filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Application U/S 482

¶11

No.6535 of 2022, which was disposed of finally vide order dated 19.09.2022 giving liberty to the present applicant to appear before the learned court below/ trial court and apply her regular bail and said bail has been directed to be disposed of in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in re; Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, reported in MANU/SC/1024/2021. However, instead of appearing before the learned court below in terms of order dated 19.09.2022, the applicant has filed the present anticipatory bail application, therefore, the present anticipatory bail application may be rejected.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and other material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that even if any accused person approaches the High Court by filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after availing the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C., that may not be considered as a bar. The aforesaid point has been considered by the Apex Court and the Apex Court has also opined that there is no bar if the anticipatory bail application is filed after approaching the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since the first anticipatory bail application was not pressed seeking liberty to file another application, therefore that reason may not bar in entertaining this second anticipatory bail application.

¶13

Besides, the co-accused persons, who are the marginal witnesses, have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court and the present applicant, who is a bonafide purchaser with consideration has given undertaking that she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, therefore, her aforesaid request may be considered keeping in view that during investigation, she has not been arrested and has cooperated in the investigation. In view of the above, the present applicant is granted anticipatory bail in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98 , till conclusion of the trial proceedings.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶15

It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Manorma Devi alias Manorama Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till conclusion of the trial on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each before the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 19.1.2023 RBS/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manorma Devi Alias Manorama Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manorma Devi Alias Manorama Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

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

Nawab Singh Vs State Thur. C.B.I.

Nawab Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I

Smt. Kinchu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Other

Smt. Ram Dulari Alias Dulari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Javed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Lko.