Allowed

Smt. Veena Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2023BAIL/44248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal bail application where the applicant, charged with cheating and forgery, sought release from custody. The court noted the absence of criminal history and lack of material showing intent to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:223208

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44248 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Veena Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharam Veer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Yadav

¶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 initially the First Information Report was lodged with the allegation that one Chotte Lal has sold the property of the land in dispute beyond the share held by the aforesaid Chote Lal and the applicant is alleged to have been one of the purchaser of the aforesaid land. After investigation the final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Subsequently the applicant was summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad by order dated 14.1.2016. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid order was challenged before this Court and stay order was granted by order dated 13.04.2016 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 10837 of 2016. In the aforesaid stay order no coercive action was directed to be taken against the applicant. Subsequently the aforesaid stay order stood vacated in view of the judgment passed in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 and the applicant has been apprehended. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is the purchaser of the property and no fraud has been committed by the applicant as the applicant has parted with the sale consideration. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 9.9.2023 and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact that the applicant is the purchaser of the property.

¶10

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

¶11

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶12

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶13

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 for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

In the present case it is to be seen that in the summoning order it has not been recorded that the applicant had knowledge that the co-accused Chotte Lal was not having title to the property. Once the seller has represented his title, as claimed to the property, applicant has purchased the property, therefore, no criminality is involved.

¶18

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.

¶19

Let the applicant- Smt. Veena Gupta involved in Case Crime No. 450 of 2012, under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C., Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 24.11.2023 VMA

¶29

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

Smt. Veena Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Veena Gupta 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

Afzal Alam Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Mehboob Alam Vs State of U.P.

Lakhan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dilram Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sabir @ Tinchu Vs State of U.P.