Gayatri Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12008 of 2023 Applicant :- Gayatri Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶2This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant - Gayatri Devi in connection with Case No.4498 of 2017 (State Vs. Manoj) arising out of Case Crime No.02 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar.

¶3An unregistered agreement to sale was executed between the informant and co-accused Manoj for the sale of some land, but subsequently the said land was sold by co-accused Manoj in favour of the present applicant. F.I.R. was lodged on 2.1.2016 and now charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

¶4It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of her arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. She has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. It is further submitted that no offence has been committed by the applicant, as alleged in the F.I.R. She had purchased the said land after the payment of requisite consideration amount and she is the bonafide purchaser. No right accrues in favour of the informant merely on the basis of agreement to sale. It is further submitted that earlier an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. - 40325 of 2018 was preferred by the applicant wherein an order was passed to refer the matter for mediation and the said application was disposed of accordingly, but however the mediation between the parties was also failed. It is also submitted that that applicant is a lady having no criminal antecedents. She has been cooperative during the course of investigation. It is also submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant and now after submission of charge-sheet, she is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶5On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however could not dispute this factual position that after payment of requisite consideration amount, sale deed has been executed in favour of the applicant.

¶6Charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. Applicant has been cooperative throughout the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter.

¶7In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.

¶8Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

¶9The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall make herself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

(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 officer;

(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.

¶11In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 2.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad