Allahabad High Court
Nisha Kant Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 November, 2022
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3420 of 2022 Applicant :- Nisha Kant Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Sarwar Khan Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Rejoinder affidavit, filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Jaunpur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. According to the prosecution version, the applicants have shown themselves appointed as Assistant Teacher in Madarsa Quraniya, Gopalapur, Jaunpur, on 01.04.1999, but they were not having required qualification for the said post and in fact they have joined the services on the basis of forged appointment letters. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations made against the applicants, are thoroughly false. The appointments of applicants were made in accordance with law. It was submitted that when salary was not paid to the applicants, they have filed a writ petition before this Court and thereafter the concerned authorities have passed order dated 29.04.2002, whereby the approval of applicants was refused. Against the order dated 29.04.2002, applicants have again approached this Court by filing writ petition and that the concerned authorities were directed by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2002 to make payment of salary of applicants. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that allegations made against the applicants, are thoroughly false and that the matter has already been considered by this Court in writ petition filed by the applicants. On 03.09.2020 a show cause notice was issued to the applicants and a detailed reply of the same was submitted by the applicants. Ignoring the reply of applicants, the Management of said institution has suspended the applicants. Learned counsel submitted that applicants have submitted reply against the charge-sheet issued to them. The applicants have already challenged the order of their termination before this Court. Referring to the case of Arshad Javed Khan vs. State of U.P. and others [Writ-A No.-10967 of 2022], decided on 05.08.2022, it was submitted that no case is made out against the applicants. The applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the informant argued that applicants were not having required qualification for appointment against the said post and in fact they have joined the services on the basis of forged appointment letters. The applicants have obtained the order dated 13.09.2002 by this Court by concealing the material facts. Referring to letter of Director, Minority Welfare, Lucknow, it was submitted that it is apparent that the applicants have committed forgery and obtained the appointments on the basis of forged appointment letters. Learned counsel submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicants and they are not entitled for bail.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicants Nisha Kant Singh and Shishir Kumar Singh involved in the aforesaid case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required;
(ii) the applicants 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicants would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
Order Date :- 21.11.2022 A. Tripathi