Allowed

Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024ABAIL/1608/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a case of alleged forged registry of LDA plots. Interim protection earlier granted was made absolute, as offences were triable by Magistrate, the applicant had no criminal history and undertook cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

In event of arrest, release on anticipatory bail upon personal bond and two sureties, with conditions on investigation cooperation and witness influence.

Smt. Sushila Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60177

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1608 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Sushila Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in case crime No.0257 of 2023 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sankalp Mishra, holding brief of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶9

This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 30.07.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶10

"1.The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.0257 of 2023 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, district Lucknow.

¶11

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶12

3. According to prosecution case, a first information report was registered by Section Officer Ashok Kumar Saxena that a complaint letter dated 20.10.2022 was received in Pradhikaran Diwas by the Lucknow Development Authority where complaint of forged Registry of 17 plots of LDA was made, including plot No.E-32. An enquiry was conducted and it was revealed that the said plot is not registered in the office of Registrar. It is further alleged that the applicant in collusion with the co-accused persons after hatching conspiracy, with a view to usurp the valuable property of L.D.A. prepared a forged Registry document and executed it in favout of Ram Shankar Srivastava.

¶13

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was issued allotment letter and lease deed was executed by the L.D.A..

¶14

A Division Bench of this Court after hearing learned counsel for the

¶15

L.D.A. has passed an interim order dated 26.7.2023 in Crl. Misc. W.P. No.5143 of 2023 Raghu Raj versus State of U.P. and others in identically situate matter which is part of 17 plots regarding which forgery is alleged. It is submitted that validity of allotment letter and lease deed is in active consideration before this Court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶17

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel, however, could not dispute the facts narrated above.

¶18

He prays for and is allowed twenty days' time to file objections/counter affidavit.

¶19

6.Issue notice to respondent No.2 Lucknow Development Authority.

¶20

7.List on 14.8.2024.

¶21

8.Considering the above aspects of the matter, it appears that allotment letter was issued by the L.D.A. in favour of the applicant and lease deed was executed and arrest of the co-accused persons has already been stayed, the applicant has no criminal history, she is a lady of 55 years of age, perusal of the record, as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in peculiar facts of this case.

¶22

9. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶23

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶24

10. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection."

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant shall further cooperate in the investigation.

¶26

Learned AGA has submitted that investigation in the matter is going on, however, he could not show from the material on record that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation.

¶27

On due consideration to the fact that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is not cooperating in the trial;

¶28

offences are triable by Magistrate; the applicant is a lady; he has no previous criminal history as well as considering the undertaking given by the applicant that she will cooperate in the investigation, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶29

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O./trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶30

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶31

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

¶32

(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶33

(4) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed

¶35

Order Date :- 2.9.2024 Renu/-

¶36

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankur Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohammad Sartaj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Shashi Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

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