Allowed

Smt. Laxmi Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023BAIL/25481/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application in a cheating case, the Court examined criminal antecedents and the civil nature of the underlying employment dispute regarding refundable deposits. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that no material showed risk of tampering or intimidation and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to five specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196327

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25481 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Laxmi Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi,Shubham Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegation in the First Information Report the applicant who was the employee of the company open offices at various places and invited applications along with Rs. 36,000/-. The employees have deposited Rs. 36,000/-, however, the same was not refunded and as a result of the same, the present First Information Report has been lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the informant was also the employee of the company and she was terminated by letter dated 24.3.2022 and as a result of the same, the present First Information Report has been lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the dispute is between the parties with regard to payment and in case the refund has not been made, the remedy lies before the civil court or before the National Company Law Tribunal. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the present being a civil dispute and no element of cheating is involved. The informant has voluntarily deposited the amount at the time of taking job and in case of non-refund of amount, no criminality can be involved. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 21.04.2023 and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the

¶10

bail application and submits that the amount of Rs. 36,000/- was deposited by various employees, however, the same was not refunded. Learned counsel for the informant does not dispute the fact that the informant was also an employee.

¶11

4-A. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶12

Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

¶13

" We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked. "

¶14

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶15

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that she might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, she cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that she had criminal antecedent.

¶16

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶17

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶19

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶20

11-A. It is to be seen that in the present case the dispute is between the employee and employer and some amount was deposited by the employees at the time of appointment and the same has not been refunded. In the present case the alleged dispute seems to be of a civil nature.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant- Smt. Laxmi Tiwari involved in Case Crime No. 315 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶24

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶26

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶27

v. 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.

¶28

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶29

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶31

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 VMA

¶32

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Laxmi Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmi Tiwari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asif Vs State of U.P.

Nazim @ Inga Vs State of U.P.

Bali Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya @ Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Janvesh Vs State of U.P.

Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P.