Anita Devi v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10688 of 2023 Applicant :- Anita Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Anita Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.78 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Arniya, District Bulandshahr.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is also submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise outside the Court and now no dispute remains between them. The applicant is a lady and she was absolutely nowhere involved in the alleged crime by playing fraud. It is further submitted that the compromise deed, which took place between the parties, is also made part of the record. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however, learned counsel for the informant has expressed his consent to allow this anticipatory bail application and he has also corroborated the factum of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶5I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6It reveals from the perusal of the record that only on the basis of an agreement to sale, a sale deed was executed in this matter by the proposed vendee and the present applicant is the purchaser of the land, which was fraudulently sold. F.I.R. was lodged on

11.4.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that a compromise outside the Court has been entered into between the parties and the learned counsel for the informant has also corroborated the factum of said compromise.

¶7In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶8In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶9Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶10The application is allowed accordingly.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

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

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 17.10.2023 safi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad