Allowed

Shashibala v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023ABAIL/7673/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal declined giving final opinion on merits of the case but allowed anticipatory bail for applicant fearing arrest in a criminal case alleging forgery. Bail granted subject to furnishing bond and specific conditions including appearance before courts and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

grant of anticipatory bail on personal bond with two sureties; conditions to appear before trial court, not tamper evidence, not leave India without permission, obey summons.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160273

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7673 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shashibala Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghav Arora Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 424 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Gabhana, District Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the co-accused persons are stated to have forged the will deed of the deceased Ram Prasad subsequent to his death, who had expired on 11.10.1993. The applicant is stated to be Basic Health Worker at CHC, Janwa, District Aligarh, whereby the applicant is stated to have issued a fake death certificate of the deceased person.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of her arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, whereby the applicant holds immunity as provided in Section 28 of the Act, as he has acted in good faith. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has not misused his powers, whatsoever and has not committed any offence. It is next stated that the applicant has already retired in 2016. It is next stated that the civil suit is going on between the parties for cancellation of the sale deed subsequent to the will deed.

¶9

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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal

¶10

antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, she will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Shashibala involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶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 him 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 previous permission of the court;

¶18

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Order Date :- 9.8.2023\Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shashibala v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashibala 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

Chandu @ Chand Mohd Vs State of U.P.

Aman Chauhan@ Aman Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faiyyaz Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Jafar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Jyoti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others