Allowed

Rajkumari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023ABAIL/3020/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Rajkumari in a case concerning alleged forgery and cheating. Considering the applicant's cooperation, lack of criminal antecedents, and social status, the court granted bail until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; interim protection granted till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of similar amount.

Rajkumari Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170520

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3020 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajkumari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shaloo Singh,Ravi Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Rajkumari in Case Crime No.142 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Shahganj, District - Jaunpur.

¶9

Chanra Devi, the alleged owner of the land in question was shown to be dead in conclusion with the Lekhpal, Dinesh Kumar Ram and by way of succession, her property was sold by the present applicant along with other co-accused persons. F.I.R. was lodged on 26.05.2022 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶10

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. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant is an illiterate lady. It is next submitted that the mutation in the revenue record was made by the area lekhpal and the present applicant had nothing to do with that. It is further submitted that the sale deed had been executed under a bona fide belief that the present applicant was also having right and title over the land in dispute. It is next

¶12

submitted that the forgery, if any, made in the revenue record has not been made by the present applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation and she is having no criminal antecedents to her credit and as such, she is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶14

In the present case, the applicant is said to be an illiterate lady and she has been cooperative with the investigation of the case.

¶15

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, llikelihood 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory 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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶18

12. The application is allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on

¶20

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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Shivangi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajkumari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumari v. State of U.P.

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

Basheel Khan @ Baseer Khan Vs State of U.P.

Nempal Vs State of U.P.

Niranjan Kumar @ Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajul Vs State of U.P.

Sudama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Shareef and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another