Dismissed

Priyanka v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023ABAIL/8364/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant sought bail facing charges of cheating for allegedly using false documents to secure a government teaching job. The court held that the serious allegations, corroborated by findings of an enquiry report, made out a case for exercising judicial discretion to deny bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185270

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8364 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Priyanka Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash Prajapati

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Om Prakash , learned counsel for the informant.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.57 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Padri, District Mirzapur.

¶9

In short the prosecution story is that in the year 2015, selection proceedings were initiated by Joint Director of Education, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur for appointment of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in Government Higher Secondary Schools. The applicant was selected and granted appointment vide letter dated 20.08.2015 issued by Joint Director of Education, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur. In pursuance of aforesaid letter, the applicant joined her duties as Assistant Teacher Urdu. It is alleged that on 28.04.2021, the applicant was got married to one Sher Singh, who belongs to yadav community. Thereafter, due to pregnancy, the applicant applied for maternity leave w.e.f. 22.11.2021 to 19.05.2022, which was approved and sanctioned. On 30.01.2022, the applicant has given birth to a male child. It is further alleged that while the applicant was on maternity leave, the Joint Director of Education vide communication dated 04.01.2022 directed the Headmistress of Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bharpur, where the applicant was posted, to submit document pertaining to the applicant within 15 days. In compliance thereof, the Headmistress of Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bharpur vide communication dated 05.01.2022

¶10

issued a letter to the applicant to submit her documents within a period of one week. The applicant submitted reply dated 24.01.2022 accompanying all original documents. It is further alleged that in the meantime, a news was published in local newspaper making allegation of fraudulent appointment having been sought by the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed representation dated 02.03.2022 before the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj and also to the other authorities of the Education Department and District Administration as well. Subsequently, on 16.04.2022, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the applicant showing her father as Ajmer Singh Yadav. After lodging the FIR, the applicant approached before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6621 of 2022 and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.06.2022 has passed the interim order in favour of the applicant. It is further alleged that on 12.05.2022 and 13.05.2022 an order was passed by the Additional Director of Education (Government), Directorate of Secondary Education, UP Prayagraj whereby the applicant was terminated from her services. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached before this Court by filing Writ-A No.10535 of 2022 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.09.2022 has stayed the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 12.05.2022 and 13.05.2022 by which the services of the applicant was terminated. The said writ petition is still pending.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The actual name of the applicant is Smt. Priyanka daughter of Manoj Kumar, who is aged about 30 years having a one year male child. Neither the name of the applicant is Priyanka Yadav nor her father name is Azmer Singh. The applicant has never used any false identity of any person for obtaining service, per contra, applicant obtained service on her own identity, which was duly verified by the officers concerned at the time of verification, which was conducted prior to joining of the applicant. He further submits that since 2015 to 2022, the applicant regularly working on her post and also received salary and suddenly on the basis of unknown complaint, the services of the applicant has been terminated. He further submits that the identity and service of the applicant is sub-judice before this Court in writ petition no.10535 of 2022 and till the disposal of said writ petition, the identity of the applicant being to be genuine. He further submits that since the applicant solemnized marriage against the will of her parents and other family members

¶12

including the uncle were annoyed and they regularly trying to ruin the entire career of the applicant. Since the relation of the mother of the applicant, who is also a government teacher, with Joint Director Education are very close to each other, the Joint Director Education under the influence of mother of the applicant want to ruin the entire career of the applicant. He further submits that Ajmer Singh and their family members, who are prime witnesses of entire case, have not made as witness in charge sheet in spite of the fact that their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded during course of investigation, which clearly shows the present investigation was conducted under the pressure of first informant and other higher officials of education department. Prima facie the FIR does not disclose any offence as against the applicant and no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 59 of the affidavit.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has submitted that the candidature of daughter of informant alongwith some other candidates was cancelled on the ground that they have got their graduation degree from Makhan Lal Chaturvedi University Bhopal, which was also challenged before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.66778 of 2015, which is still pending but surprisingly on the basis of same document of daughter of deponent, the alleged applicant Priyanka has been selected and appointed as Urdu Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School showing fraudulent documents used by the applicant but other details are identical with that of original Priynaka, which clearly shows that alleged applicant has used the documents of original Priyanka for obtaining the job. They have further submitted that the real name of the alleged applicant is Priyanka Soni daughter of Ajmer Singh having date of birth 10.08.1988 as per Aadhar Card. They further submitted that the services of the applicant has rightly been terminated on the basis of enquiry reported dated 08.03.2022 in which the description of documents produced by the applicant and father of real Priyanka has been matched and no difference is found between the documents of real Priyanka and alleged applicant. The allegations

¶15

are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶16

Perusal of inquiry report clearly shows that on the basis of aforesaid publication, an enquiry was conducted through three members enquiry committee headed by Joint Director of Education Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur and report was submitted on 08.03.2022 in which the description of documents produced by the applicant and the father of another Priyanka has been found matched and no difference was found between the documents of applicant and the another Priyanka from High School Standard up to the B.Ed Course. So far as contents other than photographs are concerned, Aadhar Card of husband of alleged applicant and another Priyanka and also Pan Card of both Priyanka are not identical and photographs are also different.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶18

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶19

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 Ajeet

¶20

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priyanka v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Priyanka v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Khushbu @ Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another