Uttarakhand High Court
Archana Pathak vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 235 of 2024
Archana Pathak ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Hum Nashin Ahmed, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj
Joshi, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0213 of 2022, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, one JKV Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. was opened at Haldwani. Various persons were induced to invest the money in it with the assurance of higher returns, but, subsequently, returns were not paid. The applicant is shown as the Director of the company.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that co-accused have already been granted bail; the applicant is a mother of three minor children; she may not be held guilty for the act of the company.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the role of the applicant is different than that of co-accused; she 2 has not been cooperating with the investigation; non bailable warrants were issued against her on 10.01.2024. Thereafter, processes under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were also issued against her.
6. The instant anticipatory bail application was filed on 03.04.2024, i.e. much after the coercive processes were issued against the applicant for securing her presence during investigation. It is apparent that the applicant has been concealing her presence. Her role may not be equated with the co-accused, who had joined the investigation. The conduct of the applicant disentitles her anticipatory bail.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be dismissed.
8. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.04.2024 Ravi Bisht