Allowed

Leelavati @ Meena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anotehr

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2024ABAIL/1982/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to an applicant accused of cheating and forgery. The court considered the applicant's status as a witness in a prior proceeding, ongoing property disputes, lack of criminal history, and the Supreme Court's decision on a co-accused. An order dated 3.9.2024 allows the application subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is allowed, conditional upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in a like amount, and complying with conditions to appear, not ta

Leelavati @ Meena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60502

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1982 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Leelavati @ Meena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Anotehr Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Vardhan Srivastava,Raj Priya Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jagriti Bardhan Rao

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Raj Priya Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as Shri Vivek Pandey, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2- informant 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.323 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station- Wazirganj, District- Gonda.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a F.I.R. lodged on 19.09.2021 against four persons, including the applicant and an unnamed revenue officials, stating that the applicant has fraudulently got his Aadhar Card etc. prepared showing herself to be wife of late Sharda Prasad whereas she is wife of Rashid Khan and she has wrongly done so in an attempt to grab property of the applicant's deceased brother. The complaint forming basis of lodging of the FIR was addressed to the hon'ble President of India, hon'ble Prime Minister of India, hon'ble Governor of State, hon'ble Chief Minister of State, Divisional Commissioner, District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police and the informant has prayed through the application for taking appropriate action for

¶9

cancellation of the documents.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent woman, she has falsely been implicated in the present case and she has no criminal history.

¶11

A copy of the charge-sheet dated 25.07.2004 filed in furtherance of an FIR bearing Case Crime No.184 of 2004 regarding death of the applicant's brother Sharda Prasad has been annexed with the application in which the applicant's name has been mentioned as a witness and her husband's name has been mentioned as Sharda Prasad.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after death of her husband Sharda Prasad in the year 2004, various disputes are going on between the parties regarding property of the deceased husband of the applicant. The FIR has been lodged in the year 2021 to put undue pressure on the applicant so as to gain advantage in the ongoing civil disputes.

¶13

Opposing the bail application, Shri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the informant has stated that the Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2997 of 2023 filed by a co-accused Junaid Ahmad has been rejected by means of an order dated 21.12.2023 passed by this Court.

¶14

Junaid Ahmed has been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the hon'ble Supreme court in SLP (Crl.) No. of 2024 and a copy of that order has been annexed as annexure No.13 to the application.

¶15

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant's name is mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 25.07.2004 as a witness,

¶16

describing her as wife of late Sharda Prasad in the year 2004 and property disputes are going on between the parties since then and yet the FIR has been lodged in the year 2021 and that co-accused Jaunaid Ahmed, whose anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court, has been granted anticipatory bail by the hon'ble Supreme Court and that the applicant is a woman having no criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶17

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Leelavati @ Meena before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, she/he shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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:

¶18

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

¶19

(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;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 -Amit K-

¶25

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

Leelavati @ Meena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anotehr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelavati @ Meena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anotehr

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

Smt. Prabha Pandey vs Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, District- Barabanki and Anr.

Suraj Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Vedant Maurya @ Kumari Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Ramvilas and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Priya Srivastava vs Gaurav Srivastava

Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Secy. and Another vs Sri Hariom Srivastava and Another