Uttarakhand High Court
Sonia Chaudhary vs State Of Uttarakhand on 7 June, 2023
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 69 of 2023
Sonia Chaudhary .......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:- Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pande, A.G.A. for the State.
Dated : 07.06.2023
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
Applicant Sonia Chaudhary, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 471 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 Police Station Rishikesh, District Dehradun has sought her release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; that, she has falsely been implicated in the instant crime. He would further submit that the applicant is duly married in India. He would argued that after the amendment of the Citizen Act, 2019, 2 vide Act No. 47 of 2019, there is an amendment in Section 2 of the Citizenship Act, proviso of which provides that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before 31st December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of Sub- Section (2) of Section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 (34 of 1920) or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1943) or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act. He further argued that as per Section 3 of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, any proceedings pending against such person under this Act in respect of illegal migration or citizenship shall stand abated on conferment of citizenship on him.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant/accused is Hindu by faith; she is languishing in jail since 23.08.2022; that, the applicant has two kids a 18 years old daughter and a son 11 years of age, who are living alone as the husband of the applicant/accused is working in Dubai; that, she is an innocent person. He further submit that there is no possibility of absconding of the applicant/accused as she 3 is married to a citizen of India, and her children are also living in India, thus, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars as the trial is likely to take long time.
5. Mr. Pratiroop Pande, A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the applicant/accused has not only overstayed in India but has also committed an offence under Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and under Sections 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
6. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case this Court is of the view that it is a case for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 40,000/- and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 07.06.2023 Mamta