Allowed

Shushma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2023BAIL/56082/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 406, 420, 34 IPC and related money-banking laws, the Allahabad High Court granted bail. The court noted the applicant's criminal history, the active role of the accused husband, and jail overcrowding but allowed bail without expressing an opinion on the merits, relying on fundamental right to speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to specific conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Shushma Vs State of U.P. — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56082 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shushma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Shushma, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 166 of 2022, under Sections 406,420,34 IPC and section 3/4/5/6 Price and Chits Money Circulation Scheme(Banning) Act Police Station Bahadurgarh, District- Hapur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant that she in collusion with named co-accused,Dharmpal, who is her husband,has taken amount from different persons for the purpose of investment and misappropriated the same.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that she is wife of the named accused, Dharampal.She has been implicated in this case on the allegation that she was director of the company.The active role has been assigned to the co-accused, Dharampal. The applicant is in jail since 22.10.2021.The applicant has criminal history of 29 cases of similar nature which has been explained in paragraph-2 of the supplementary afÏdavit.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused

¶10

side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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

¶11

Let the applicant be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

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 ofÏcer;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

The applicant shall remain present, in person,

¶18

before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.3.2023

¶21

Atul kr. sri.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shushma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shushma 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

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Lallan Patel Vs State of U.P.

Harveer Vs State of U.P.

Anup Kumar Jaiswal @ Shethi Vs State of U.P.

Satish and Another Vs State of U.P.