Allowed

Reetu Kaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024/4370/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was entertained. The court noted the applicant is a female, the co-accused was already granted bail by the Supreme Court, and there was no risk of absconding. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Reetu Kaur is released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, ensuring her presence in court and adhering to specific undertakings regarding trial proceedings.

Reetu Kaur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46570

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4370 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Reetu Kaur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag.S.Kaalesh,Prerna Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anurag.S.Kaalesh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in pursuance to the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 0639 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Chinhat, District - Lucknow.

¶8

Counsel for applicant argued that allegations levelled in the FIR are false and fabricated. It has been further submitted that as per first information report, it is alleged that the applicant along with certain other persons have enticed the complainant to part with a huge amount of money for giving job to his nephew in Railways. It has further been alleged that sums of Rs. 6,80,000/-, Rs. 14,00,000/- & cash of Rs. 4,19,000/- were paid by the complainant to the accused. Subsequently, when the complainant came to know that the entire promise was nothing but a forgery and fraud played upon him, he demanded refund of his money on which he was threatened by the accused, who subsequently also promised to pay him his money by cheque but it was further stated that the cheque was bounced by insufficiency of funds.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no allegation with regard to the petitioner having accepted the amount which is alleged to have been paid by the complainant for securing the job.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Utkarsh Pratap Singh has been granted bail by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 7332 of 2023, vide order dated 01.09.2023. He further submits that the investigation in the said case has been completed and the

¶11

applicant is languishing in jail since 01.04.2024. It has further been stated that the applicant has criminal history of one case, namely, Case Crime No.196 of 2019, in which she has been granted anticipatory bail by the District Court on 09.09.2019. He submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant being a lady, may be granted benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶12

It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for applicant that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from justice or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand, opposed the bail applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and has fairly conceded that co-accused Utkarsh Pratap Singh has been already enlarged on bail.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid fact, epecially the fact that the coaccused Utkarsh Pratap Singh has already been granted bail by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. and thus, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶15

Let applicant Reetu Kaur be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0639 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Chinhat, District - Lucknow on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions :-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.

¶21

The application stands disposed of .

¶22

Order Date :- 9.7.2024 KR

¶23

( Alok Mathur,J. )

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Reetu Kaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reetu Kaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow and Others

Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 6 Others

Nanhkeu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

Achchhe Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Reetu Kaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deepali Chopra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Social Welfare, Lucknow and Others