Allowed

Smt. Vidhya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2024/493/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court allowed bail for Smt. Vidhya, who was implicated falsely for witnessing a gift deed execution, noting her clean record and the prior grant of bail to a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail on personal bond, two solvent sureties, and undertaking to appear before trial court and not tamper with evidence.

Smt. Vidhya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21279

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 493 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Vidhya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kishore Pandey,Amitabh Agarwal,Pawan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amitabh Chaturvedi, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.746 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 02.10.2022 by the informant against one Nand Kishore and his unnamed family members stating that the informant is Secretary of The Greater Awadh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti and he has purchased a plot of land from the named accused Nand Kishore through a sale deed dated 21.08.2024 and after developing the land had transferred him to its members. Nand Kishore executed another sale deed in respect of the same land in favour of his wife Smt. Roop Devi on 16.09.2020.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bailapplication it has been contended that the applicant is innocent,

¶10

she has no criminal history and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and she has been implicated falsely as she has witnessed the execution of the gift deed. The co-accused Roop Devi in whose favour the alleged gift deed has been executed has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court by means of an order dated 24.07.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.513 of 2023. Another co-accused Smt. Lalita Devi has also been granted anticipatory bail by this court by means of an order dated 20.02.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.424 of 2023.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant has been implicated merely because she had witnessed the execution of the gift deed and donnee has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Smt. Vidhya before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶17

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶18

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 11.3.2024 Ram.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Vidhya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vidhya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

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

Uday Bhan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Senior Superintendent of Police Bahraich and 3 Others

Rajesh Raj Khanna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Kalim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Tulsian Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corrupt. Branch Lko.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others