Allahabad High Court
Smt. Reeta Balwani vs State Of U.P. on 15 December, 2020
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4029 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt. Reeta Balwani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate/ Uday Karan Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Uday Karan Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Smt. Reeta Balwani, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 842 of 2017, under Section- 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun, during pendency of trial.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U. P. Amendment) is not required.
By the order dated 29.07.2020, learned A.G.A. was directed to obtain instructions in this matter. Again on 01.09.2020, time was granted for the aforesaid purpose but no counter affidavit or instructions have been received.
F.I.R. contains the fact that cheque of Rs. 15,70,000/- was given by the accused applicant in favour of the father of the informant, Mansukh Lal which is denied by the learned counsel for the applicant as it is pleaded by him that applicant is innocent. She has nothing to do with the present offence. Her husband, Dilip Rai Balwani has already been granted regular bail vide order dated 19.09.2018 by coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33767 of 2018. The applicant has definite apprehension that she may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and her antecedents, the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2609 of 2020. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial court;
2. The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned trial court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial court;
3. 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
6. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
7. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
8. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 15.12.2020 KS