VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Allahabad High Court 2023 › High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Reena Passi @ Reena Subhash Passi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits/Granted
Court
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Decided
11 December 2023
Bench
Subhash Vidyarthiauthor
Case no.
2841/2023

Judgment

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2841 of 2023 Applicant :- Reena Passi @ Reena Subhash Passi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manjusha Kapil,Abhishek Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶1Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, Advocate in Court today on behalf of complaint is taken on record.

¶2Heard Ms. Manjusha Kapil, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Anurag Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for complainant and perused the records.

¶3The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 0707 of 2023, under Sections - 420, 467, 468, 471 & 406 I.P.C., registered at Police Station-Kotwali City, District-Hardoi.

¶4The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 10.10.2023 against the applicant and her husband Subhash Passi, stating that the informant's neighbour had introduced two persons on 24.07.2018 and had told that they are engaged in property business in Mumbai and they have a flat, which would be sold for Rs.

2.5 crores. The informant introduced the accused persons to one Ruchi Goyal, who paid Rs. 49 lacs through a cheque which was credited to the applicant's bank account, thereafter, the property was not transferred.

¶5In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶6Another FIR bearing Case Crime No. 471 of 2023 under Sections-420, 406, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station-Kotwali City, District - Hardoi on similar allegations alleging payment of Rs. 49 lacs and the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail in that case by means of order date 28.10.2023 passed by this Court in ABAIL No. 2394 of 2023.

¶7The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶8Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant's grievance is against non-transfer of an immovable property whereas no registered agreement has been executed for transfer of the property; the informant is merely a broker and the persons who had paid the amount has apparently not initiated any proceedings for performance of the contract or for refund of her money and that the applicant is a woman and she has already been granted anticipatory bail in the other case of similar nature and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶9In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Reena Passi @ Reena Subhash Passi before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;

(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;

(iii). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. Order Date :- 11.12.2023 Mohit Singh/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Source: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.