Allowed

Rajbala Walia @ Madhubala Walia and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2023ABAIL/12523/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

_THIS HIGH COURT GRANTED ANTICIPATORY BAIL_ to three applicants accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The court held the application was a fit case for bail pending the filing of the police report under S. 173 Cr.P.C., noting the applicants were cooperating and allegedly falsely implicated._

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending filing of police report under S. 173 Cr.P.C. conditioned on ₹50,000 bond from each applicant and two sureties each, with compliance conditions.

Rajbala Walia @ Madhubala Walia and 2 Others Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:218123

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12523 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajbala Walia @ Madhubala Walia And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shrish Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Rajbala Walia @ Madhubala Walia, Amit Walia and Sapan Walia seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.572 of 2023, under Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kanker Kheda, District Meerut.

¶8

The owner of Baba Jewelers co-accused Rajendra Walia was given a huge amount of money to make the golden jewelries and some golden jewelries were also given. After a long span of time, the money and jewelries given by the informant were not returned to him. F.I.R. was lodged against named accused persons including the present applicants on 5.9.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the abovementioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is also submitted that as per allegations contained in the F.I.R., no jewelry was handed over to the applicants by the informant and no money was even given to the applicants. It is further submitted that as per prosecution case, only co-accused Rajendra Walia and Vineet Walia were involved in the commission of the alleged embezzlement of the money and golden jewelries of the informant. It is also submitted that only on account of being the family members of the main accused Rajendra Walia, the applicants have been falsely roped in this matter. There is no evidence at all against the applicants. They are the respectable

¶10

persons in the society and the criminal antecedents disclosed against the applicants have been challenged by way of criminal misc. writ petitions filed before this Court. They are cooperating with the investigation of the case and as such, they are entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however he could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter that as per allegations made in the F.I.R., no money or jewelry was handed over to any of the applicants at any point of time by the informant.

¶12

In the present matter, investigation is going on and the applicants are cooperating with the I.O. of the case. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory

¶16

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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶17

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶21

(iii) 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.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.11.2023

¶24

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajbala Walia @ Madhubala Walia and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbala Walia @ Madhubala Walia and 2 Others 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

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Birju Vs State of U.P.

Dharmesh Narayan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seema Devi Vs State of U.P.