Allowed

Smt Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023ABAIL/1476/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an applicant facing charges of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The court released her on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties upon the filing of the investigation report, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties till the submission of the investigation report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Smt Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1476 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Urmila Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Kesharwani,Rajesh Kesharwani

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application is being moved by the applicant- Smt Urmila Devi that she has every reason to believe that she may be arrested in connection with Case Crime no.059 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police StationRampur, District-Jaunpur.

¶8

From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting her anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 21.12.2022.

¶9

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is named in F.I.R. and the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant leveling the allegations that applicant has manipulated the death certificate of her mother-in-law and got certain properties mutated in revenue records in her favour.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and on the basis of registered will deed executed by her mother-in-law in her favour, she got the mutation of the said property in the revenue records done. As she was not having any

¶12

relationship with her mother-in-law, therefore, on the basis of wrong information given by some person a death certificate was issued by Pradhan, though her mother-in-law is alive. When the applicant came to know about the aforesaid fact, the order of mutation has been recalled, therefore, she has not committed any offence intentionally or deliberately. Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously advanced a number of arguments demonstrating falsity of accusation levelled by the informant in first information report to besmirch reputation of the applicant and belittle her in the public estimate. He contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to her credit and never undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced on behalf of the applicant that she would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest her. He further submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶14

After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.

¶15

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶16

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer , with the conditions that :

¶17

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

¶18

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶19

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶20

(iv) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent way and would try to conclude it expeditiously.

¶21

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law, independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶22

In the event, the applicant breach or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Rahul.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waseem @ Chania Pahalwan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kajal @ Mansi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Amardeep Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naseer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.