Allowed

Vinita Yadav @ Seema Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023ABAIL/706/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for the applicant, who faced allegations of cheating and forgery. The Court imposed standard conditions regarding interrogation, tampering, and travel, directed release upon arrest, and ordered bail validity until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, citing Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed for anticipatory bail till filing of police report; applicant to execute bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and satisfy conditions.

Vinita Yadav @ Seema Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 706 of 2023 Applicant :- Vinita Yadav @ Seema Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Grijesh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶3

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Vinita Yadav @ Seema Yadav seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.49 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Khampar, District Deoria.

¶4

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

¶5

It has been argued 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 further submitted that on the basis of some forged enquiry, the present applicant has been charged in this matter and it is alleged against her that on the basis of the testimonial certificates of some other Vinata Yadav, she obtained service in the office of B.S.A. Deoria. It is further submitted that she has been working since 2010 and all of a sudden in the year 2020 she has undergone an enquiry regarding the forged and fabricated educational certificates. Main ground of suspicion against the applicant is that she obtained her education from District Kanpur whereas she is the resident of District Deoria and only on the basis of surmises, conjectures and suspicion the present F.I.R. has been lodged. Co-accused Ram Lakhan has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 1.11.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9081 of 2022. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

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 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) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶10

The application is allowed .

¶11

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:-

¶12

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

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.4.2023/safi

¶17

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

Vinita Yadav @ Seema Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinita Yadav @ Seema Yadav 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

Smt Santosh Alias Santaresh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Ramkali and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mannu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Muslim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Vashishth and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jumma Vs State of U.P. and Another