Allowed

Smt. Sudha Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023ABAIL/2376/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to Smt. Sudha Sharma in a cheating case pending investigation. The court held her role as a witness to a co-accused's loan application, with no evidence against her, made it a fit case for bail pending the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Smt. Sudha Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172137

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2376 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Sudha Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sonu Malik,Divyansh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Smt. Sudha Sharma seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Chhataria, District Bulandshahr.

¶7

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

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It is also submitted that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offences. The applicant is stated to be a witness in the said proceedings whereby the K.C.C. loan was taken by the coaccused Smt. Rajesh on the basis of fake and fabricated documents. The applicant is neither a beneficiary nor the person who had taken the loan. No loan amount has been withdrawn by her. It is further submitted that the co-accused Smt. Rajesh has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.3559 of 2023. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she 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.

¶10

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

¶11

From the perusal of the record it reveals that the applicant is the witness in the proceedings whereby the K.C.C. loan was taken by the co-accused Smt. Rajesh. Applicant is not beneficiary of the said loan amount. Co-accused Smt. Rajesh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.3559 of 2023.

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

¶14

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶15

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant, she 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶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 him/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 her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶20

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 applicant.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.8.2023

¶22

safi

¶23

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

Smt. Sudha Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sudha Sharma 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

Sarvendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munish Kumar Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Swayam Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyapal Singh Deshwal Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Prasad Bari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another