Allowed

Kumari Savita Sinha v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC5 Feb 2024BAIL APPLN./279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a bail application filed by Kumari Savita Sinha. The Court directed her release on regular bail in an IPC cheating and forgery case, noting the investigation was complete, co-accused were on bail, and continued custody served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Accused directed to be released on bail by furnishing a bond for ₹50,000 with one surety of a like amount.

Kumari Savita Sinha Vs the State of NCT of Delhi — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 279/2024

¶4

KUMARI SAVITA SINHA ..... Applicant Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, Mr. V.K. Pandey, Mr. Simanta Kumar & Ms. Aarti Southey, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the State with SI Dharamveer, PS Chhawla.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 05.02.2024

¶9

CRL.M.A. 2275/2024 (exemption from filing certified copy of order) , CRL.M.A. 2276/2024 (exemption from filing official translation of FIR) & CRL.M.A. 2277/2024 (exemption from filing latest status report filed by IO before learned Trial Court)

¶10

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The applications stand disposed of.

¶12

BAIL APPLN. 279/2024

¶13

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’), seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 225/2022 dated 12.04.2022, registered at Police Station Chhawla for offences under Sections 467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’).

¶14

The present FIR was registered on a complaint made by ASI Dilawar Singh/ complainant alleging that on 12.04.2022, at

¶15

BAIL APPLN. 279/2024 Page 1 of 5

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:48:24

¶17

around 10:00am, one person namely, Mukesh Kumar, came to the BSF Camp, Chhawala with a forged appointment proposal Letter (No. R-7/089/SIG/SS C/GD-13, dated 23.03.2022) for appointment in 25^th Batallion whereas, the BSF Office had not issued any such appointment. The complainant alleged that the appointment proposal letter along with the affixed stamp and signature, is forged .

¶18

On the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered.

¶19

During the course of the investigation, it emerged that the applicant/accused, in connivance with co-accused Ghanshyam, who presented himself as DSP (Retired) Sandeep, entered into an agreement with Mukesh for a sum of ₹5 lakhs in exchange for facilitating his appointment in the BSF. As part of this arrangement, Mukesh initially handed over ₹1,50,000 in cash to the applicant/accused on 03.02.2023. Subsequently, upon receiving the alleged forged appointment letter, Mukesh deposited a further sum of ₹1,50,000 into the bank account of the applicant/accused. The applicant's account was also linked to Ghanshyam's mobile number, through which the accused/applicant conducted regular transactions.

¶20

The applicant, in the present case, was arrested on 08.12.2023.

¶21

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as she herself is a victim of the actions of the main accused namely, Ghanshyam.

¶22

The learned counsel submits that the charge sheet in the present case has been filed under Sections 420/120B of the IPC qua the present applicant, and the investigation is complete.

¶23

BAIL APPLN. 279/2024 Page 2 of 5

¶24

¶25

Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the applicant in further custody.

¶26

He submits that the applicant has deep roots in the society and there is no likelihood of her fleeing the administration of justice.

¶27

He submits that the other accused persons including the main accused Ghanshyam, have been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court.

¶28

The present case is based on documentary evidence which is already in possession of the Prosecution, which led to filing of the chargesheet in the present case.

¶29

The applicant, being a woman, is undeniably entitled to special consideration while dealing with the question of bail, in terms of the proviso to Section 437 (1) of the CrPC. The applicant is a house wife and has to take care of children, one of whom is a minor. It is also not disputed that the applicant has any antecedents.

¶30

It is to be borne in mind that at the pre-conviction stage, there is a presumption of innocence. Detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive.

¶31

It is also apposite to refer to the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI : (2012) 1 SCC 40

¶32

“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶33

BAIL APPLN. 279/2024

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

¶36

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.”

¶37

It is not disputed by the Prosecution that the investigation in the present case is complete and charge sheet has been filed and the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and the role attributed to the applicant is not graver than the role of the other co-accused persons. Evidently, the custody of the applicant is no longer required.

¶38

Considering the aforesaid facts, and the fact that the coaccused persons have been already released on bail, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further incarceration.

¶39

In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be released on bail in FIR No.225/2022 on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Metropolitan Magistrate on the following conditions:

¶40

a. The applicant shall provide the address where she would be residing after the release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;

¶41

b. She shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed;

¶42

c. She shall under no circumstance leave the country without

¶43

BAIL APPLN. 279/2024 Page 4 of 5

¶44

¶45

the permission of the Court;

¶46

d. She shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep her mobile phone switched on at all times.

¶47

In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal.

¶48

The present application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶49

It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of considering the bail application and the same shall not be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶50

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶51

FEBRUARY 5, 2024 ‘hkaur’

¶52

BAIL APPLN. 279/2024

¶53

Page 5 of 5

¶54

This is a digitally signed order.

¶55

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:48:24

Kumari Savita Sinha v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Savita Sinha v. the State of NCT of Delhi

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

Similar cases

Mohd Ahatkam Vs State of NCT of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Hans Kumar Jain Vs State

Rahul Khorwal & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Shri Anant Mann Dahiya & Ors. Vs State & Ors.

Mukesh Shokeen @ Mukesh Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Gulshan Chopra Vs Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Ltd.