Allowed

Smt. Reeta Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023ABAIL/848/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Application filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case alleging forgery of will deeds. The High Court allowed the bail application, citing the Sushila Aggarwal judgment.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Smt. Reeta Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 848 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Reeta Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh,Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravikant Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravikant Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Nitin Kesarwani, 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. 49 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 120B IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Jhansi, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have forged the will deed of uncle of the informant, that too, on a plain paper to usurp his property, while the applicant had a genuine and notarized will deed of the deceased person. The husband of the applicant is stated to have filed the said fake will deed in civil court, where the suit is pending.

¶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 further stated that the applicant is the wife of the accused person Pramod Kumar Agarwal, who has expired due to covid. Learned counsel has next stated that the civil suit has been converted into the criminal one by the informant, as it has not yet been decided by the civil court as to which will deed is genuine.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. She has not misused the liberty granted to her. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, she will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is pending in this Court and no order has been passed in it. It is further stated that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail as the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against her.

¶11

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said proceedings have been initiated subsequent to the filing of the present anticipatory bail application on 18.1.2022.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for

¶13

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.

¶14

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 .

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Smt. Reeta Agrawal 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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;

¶18

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

¶19

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;

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Order Date :- 19.4.2023 Shalini

¶24

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

Smt. Reeta Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reeta Agrawal 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

Shubham Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Furkan Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Manchanda Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Imran Vs State of U.P.

Hafiz Mehraj Vs State of U.P.