Allahabad High Court
Smt. Mamta Kumari vs State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary ... on 3 June, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3949 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt. Mamta Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
I-Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Mr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia/respondent no. 4 and perused the record.
II-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia seeking Anticipatory Bail in case crime no. 0089 of 2021, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Khejuri, District Ballia.
III-On 26.05.2022, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, following order was passed:-
"The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant-Smt. Mamta Kumari is Assistant Teacher in a Primary School. Her services has been terminated by District Basic Education Officer, Ballia vide order dated 18.05.2021 with the observation, in clause 10 of the order, to lodge an F.I.R. against the applicant. The said termination order was challenged by the applicant by means of Writ A No. 6197 of 2021 (Smt. Mamta Kumari vs. Secretary Uttar Pradesh Basic Siksha Parishad, Prayagraj) which was disposed of vide order dated 11.06.2021 after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia with a direction that so far as the direction under the impugned order for lodging first information report against the petitioner is concerned, it is hereby directed that in case petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of three weeks' from today, the same shall be considered on merits by the appellate authority and it is after the appellate authority comes to the view that fraud has been committed then only action should be taken as per clause 10 of the impugned order. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid order dated 11.06.2021 was communicated to District Basic Education Officer, Ballia on 16.06.2021 and the applicant has also preferred a statutory appeal on 29.06.2021 which is still pending before Secretary, Basic Education Board, Prayagraj for its decision. The impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 19.06.2021 in violation of order dated 11.06.2021 passed by the writ Court.
On putting query, Mr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, upon instructions, fairly submits that the F.I.R. has wrongly been lodged against the applicant by mistake. He prays for and is allowed two days time to file an affidavit in this regard.
Put up this case as fresh on 30.05.2022."
IV-Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 26.05.2022, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, presently posted as Block Education Officer, Pandah, Ballia in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia has filed his personal affidavit dated 29.05.2022, which is taken on record.
V-It is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 4 that an application for lodging an F.I.R. was moved by the Block Education Officer XV, Ballia on the direction of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia merely by mistake regarding which informant Manoj Kumar Singh tenders his unconditional apology. It is also pointed out that after passing aforesaid order dated 26.05.2022, an application dated 28.05.2022 has also been sent by District Basic Education Officer, Ballia requesting to Superintendent of Police, Ballia to keep the investigation on hold pursuant to the F.I.R. dated 19.06.2021 till the final order passed in the statutory appeal preferred by the applicant before the Secretary, Basic Siksha Parishad, Prayagraj. The said application dated 29.05.2022 has also been brought on record as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit. The contends of paragraph nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the personal affidavit dated 29.05.2022 of the informant are being reproduced herein below:
"Para 2.That before submitting any explanation in the matter in dispute, the deponent tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology for kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court, if any irregularity or omission is found on his part and he further regrets the inconvenience caused to the Hon'ble Court.
Para 3.That the services of the applicant has been terminated by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia by means of order dated 18-05-2021 with the observation, in clause 10 of the order, lodge an F.I.R. against the applicant. The said termination order was challenged by the applicant by means of Writ A No. 6197 of 2021 (Smt. Mamta Kumari vs. Secretary Uttar Pradesh Basic Siksha Parishad, Prayagraj) which was disposed of vide order dated 11-06-2021 with a direction that so far as the direction under the impugned order for lodging first information report against the petitioner is concerned, it is hereby directed that in case petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of three weeks' from today, the same shall be considered on merits by the appellate authority and it is after the appellate authority comes to the view that fraud has been committed then only action should be taken as per clause 10 of the impugned order. The aforesaid order dated 11-06-2021 communicated to the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia on 16-06-2021 and the applicant has also preferred a statutory appeal on 29-06-2021 which is still pending before Secretary Basic Education Board, Prayagraj for it decision, but mistakenly the impugned F.I.R. was lodged on 19-06-2021 by the Block Education Officer, Pandah, Ballia, however, the application for lodging an FIR was moved merely by mistake, after the order of this Hon'ble Court. For which the deponent tenders his unconditional apology.
Para 4-That a fresh application has been received on 28-05-2022 to the Superintendent of Police, Ballia and the copy of the same has been forwarded to the Circle Officer, Sikandarpur, Ballia and S.H.O., Khejuri, Ballia for dropping the entire proceedings regarding the present Case Crime and the deponent has also requested not to take any coercive action against the applicant in pursuance of the Case Crime Being Case Crime No. 89 of 2021, Police Station- Khejuri, District-Ballia. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court the copy of the Application dated 28-05-2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit.
Para 5-That the first information report has been lodged against the applicant after the only because of the mistake and the same has not been lodged deliberately.
Para 6-That in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated herein above it is just and proper that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to exempt the opposite party no. 4 for the same, so that justice may be done."
VI-Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. on 06.05.2022 submits by assuring the Court that till disposal of the aforesaid statutory appeal of the applicant, the applicant shall not be arrested pursuant to the F.I.R. dated 19.06.2021.
VII-In summation, learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that the applicant has no criminal history to her credit. She has apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, applicant is released on bail, she would not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail.
VIII-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute that impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 19.06.2021 in violation of the order dated 11.06.2021 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 6197 of 2021. Informant has accepted his mistake before the Court by filing an affidavit dated 29.05.2022 as mentioned above. On the issue of cost, learned counsel for the applicant insisted for not imposing any cost upon the informant because applicant has apprehension that if cost is imposed upon the informant, there is possibility of dismissal of her statutory appeal but under the facts of this case, this court feels it appropriate to impose some cost upon the informant so that unnecessary harassment of the applicant and expenses incurred by her in the litigation may be compensated.
IX-In view of the above, the instant application is allowed with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/-(twenty five thousand) which shall be deposited by the informant/respondent no. 4 within 15 (fifteen) days to the bank account of the applicant-Mamta Kumari, being Account No. 3312323777, Baroda UP Bank Khejuri, IFSC Code is SBIN0RRPUGB.
X-Looking to the facts of the case, reasonable apprehension of arrest, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of fleeing from justice, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
XI-In the event of arrest of the applicant Smt. Mamta Kumari involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
XII-It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
XIII-Needless to say that the order dated 11.06.2021 passed in Writ A No. 6197 of 2021 shall be complied in it's letter and spirit.
XIV-Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Ballia and Investigating Officer of this case immediately.
Order Date :- 3.6.2022 Saurabh