Allowed

Smt. Meenu Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2023ABAIL/12287/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants running an NGO charged under IPC 420 and 467 for alleged cheating regarding cow progeny records. The court ordered release on a personal bond with conditions pending the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and compliance with standard bail conditions pending police report.

Smt. Meenu Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220518

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12287 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Meenu Srivastava And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava,Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Smt. Meenu Srivastava and Manoj Srivastava seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.257 of 2023, under Sections 403, 420, 467 IPC, P.S. Kasimabad, District Ghazipur.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that on 31.7.2023 an enquiry was made by the B.D.O., Kasimabad, Ghazipur and in the verification report it has been clearly mentioned that a total number of 444 cow prognies were available at the time of the enquiry and on the basis of that payment till the month of June, 2023 was also approved and the same fact was found in another verification report dated 29.8.2023. It is also submitted that an application dated 4.9.2023 was already given by the applicant no.2 to the Station Officer, Kasimabad, Ghazipur that the tin shade and boundary wall have fallen due to heavy rain and the main gate was also shattered and several cow prognies have left the place and they are being searched. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts no embezzlement or misappropriation of government money has been committed by the present applicants. Applicants have no criminal history to their credit. The investigation of the case is going-on and the applicants are cooperating with the same. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute the verification report made by the B.D.O., Kasimabad, Ghazipur.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

It reveals from the perusal of the record that the applicants are running N.G.O. for keeping and protection of cows and in the inspection it was found that in the logbook a total number of 438 cow prognies have been entered whereas physically only 245 cow prognies were found. It also came into light that the accused persons are showing excess number of cow prognies to obtain money from the government and thereby they have committed cheating and F.I.R. was lodged on 7.10.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that the applicants are said to be cooperative with the investigation. They have no criminal history to their credit.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶13

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then

¶14

there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶16

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions :-

¶18

The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶19

The applicants 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

The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶22

The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of applicants in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.11.2023

¶25

safi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Meenu Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meenu Srivastava and Another 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

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shivchandra Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Khatik Vs State of U.P.

Chand Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeet Gupta Alias Ramjit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another