Allowed

Smt. Sudesh Kumari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 May 2023ABAIL/3593/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Sudesh Kumari. The court noted the alleged error was clerical and not malicious. The applicant was granted bail until the conclusion of trial upon furnishing a bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed until conclusion of trial on personal bond and one or two sureties subject to conditions.

Smt. Sudesh Kumari Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116227

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3593 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Sudesh Kumari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Agarwal,Virpratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Second supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Vikas Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajat Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Kesharwani, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.222 of 2019, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station- Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is stated to have issued wrong certificate in respect of coaccused Radha wife of Rajkumar, while she ought to have prescribed her name as Mamta Devi @ Radha wife of Raj Kumar. The said error is clerical error. The applicant is a bona fide person. The said mistake cannot be assigned to the applicant of any malice whatsoever. The applicant has no criminal history to her credit. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 21.1.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.102 of 2020. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that she has co-operated in the

¶11

investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Smt. Sudesh Kumari be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii). that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 24.5.2023 Vikas

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sudesh Kumari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sudesh Kumari 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

Amit Kumar Goyal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P.

Nazar Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Kesherwani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yakin Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Doodhnath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another