Savitri Devi Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11455 of 2023 Applicant :- Savitri Devi Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Pandey,Ashok Kumar Rai,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Savitri Devi Mishra seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.188 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 386, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 IPC, P.S. Manda, District Prayagraj.

¶2Heard Shri M.P. Rai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pavan Kumar Pandey and Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, 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 further submitted that the applicant who is a lady is not an unauthorized occupant over the property in dispute and as a matter of fact the said property was allotted as patta in favour of her ancestor Budh Sen Misra and by way of succession now the present applicant is residing in the said property as a valid allottee. It is also submitted that the informant has absolutely no concern with the property in question. It is further submitted that the husband of the applicant Reuti Raman Misra has filed a civil suit bearing no. 1815 of 2021 in the competent Civil Court at Allahabad and the said Suit is still pending. It is further submitted that the police had forcefully and in an unauthorized manner prepared a compromise deed which was a fabricated document and was prepared under compulsion. The investigation of the case is going-on and she is cooperating with the same. Applicant has no criminal history to her credit. 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. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the property in question is an ancestral property of the informant and the present applicant was permitted to live in the said house by late Avinash Srivastava, uncle of the informant and this fact finds support from the statement of relevant witnesses. The alleged lease deed is a forged and fabricated document and has been executed without any right or authority. It is also submitted that the applicant is the resident of Fatehpur district whereas the property is situated at Allahabad and there was no occasion to grant any lease in respect of the property in question in favour of the present applicant.

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

¶6The house in question was given by Avinash Srivastava, uncle of the informant to the present applicant to reside therein but subsequently the applicant procured a forged and fabricated document of allotment in her favour and is trying to grab the aforesaid property of the informant whereas she is the resident of district Fatehpur. F.I.R. was lodged on 8.7.2022 and investigation started, which is still going on. Prima facie the dispute appears to be purely of civil nature and the civil suit for permanent injunction is already and admittedly pending between the parties. It also reveals that the investigation is going on and the applicant has been cooperative with the same so far.

¶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 :- 28.11.2023 safi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad