Soni Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4667

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 85 of 2025

Applicant :- Soni Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Soumya Dixit,Pratyush Rawat,Rajan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The instant application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.927 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶8

As per the prosecution story, the informant Rajpal son of Manohar lodged the First Information Report that his land bearing Gata No.514 has fraudulently been sold out and the applicant Soni Kumari has purchased the same while committing forgery and fabrication.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is a Director of the company, namely, City Doors Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Gomti Nagar Vistar, Lucknow and is doing business of developing the land in several areas including Nawabganj, Barabanki. He added that husband of the applicant, namely, Jameel Ansari, one of the Company was contacted with one Dharmendra Singh @ Sonu, who was shown to be the broker, and had got met the purchaser though later on it was said that same is impostor and the meeting was organised with the same owner and the land was purchased by the applicant under the bona fide belief that the person, who is executing the sale deed, is the actual owner of the property in question. He submits that in fact, the applicant is a businessman and she was not involved in committing the offence and she is bona fide purchaser. He also submits that in fact, the applicant has never committed any offence instead she is made scapegoat and she herself is victimised. Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant has transferred Rs.5 lakhs in lieu of sale consideration in the account of Satish and Dharmendra, which prima facie shows

¶10

that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser. He next submits that there are two cases criminal history against the applicant with respect to the gata number 499 wherein some registered sale deed is said to be executed by an impostor and except apart there is no criminal history of the applicant. He next submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and she undertakes that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail if granted and would cooperate in investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the present applicant is named in the F.I.R. and she was involved in committing the offence and she cannot disown the criminal liability as she being the Director, had purchased the land which has been sold out by the impostor in collusion with her and, after thorough investigation, it was found that she is involved in committing the offence and strong evidences were collected by the Investigating Officer and, thus, she is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the present applicant being the Director is bona fide purchaser, as an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was disbursed in the account of the impostor, namely, Satish and Dharmendra. This Court has also noticed the fact that there are two cases criminal history with respect to the gata number 499 and except apart, there is no criminal history of the applicant and the applicant has undertaken that she will not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶13

Let the accused-applicant- Soni Kumari be released forthwith in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 927 of 2022 on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶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

¶17

permission of the court;

¶18

(iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 kkv/

¶24

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

Soni Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tusharkant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Dhaniram and Another Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow

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

Ashish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raja Singh @ Veer Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jillehasan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Acs/ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others