Allahabad High Court
Smt. Gajla Devi vs State Of U.P. on 2 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154273 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8358 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Gajla Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Agarwal,Vikash Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This anticipatory bail application (U/s 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved by the applicant Smt. Gajla Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 222 of 2019 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that informant of this case has enmity with the accused applicant and other co-accused because of business rivalry and because of that only he has implicated the applicant and other co-accused in this false case in which main allegation is made that name of husband of her daughter, Mamta has been shown as Rakesh Kumar Yadav wrongly although her name was Raj Kumar Yadav to obtain job in Angan Bari. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the report of Apar Nagar Magistrate-I dated 23.06.2018 addressed to the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Moradabad in which it has been mentioned that after enquiry in this matter, it has come into light that the informant/complainant of this case was involved in business of contractorship and was having evil-eye upon co-accused, Mamta. He had made false F.I.R. against the applicant and co-accused. It is also apparent from the documents that the name of husband of Rohini is Rakesh Kumar ; name of husband of Mamta was Raj Kumar which is proved on the basis of evidence on record. In the voter list, name of husband of Mamta has been recorded as Rakesh Kumar Yadav that seems to be a clerical error which could be possible due to the human mistake, therefore, it is submitted that the complaint was baseless. Earlier a Case Crime No. 34 of 2018 under Section 354-gha and Section 294 I.P.C. was lodged by Mamta against O.P. No. 2 and because of these reasons/ enmity, false implication of accused applicant has been made in the present F.I.R.; accused has no criminal history. It is further submitted that during course of investigation the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.1.2020 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 23 of 2020 and same has not been misused by her. It is laso submitted that main accused Mamta @ Radha Yadav was also granted anticipatory bail during course of investigation by this Court on 2.8.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11467 of 2021 and since charge sheet was filed a correction order was passed on 6.8.2022 extending benefit of anticipatory bail to her till conclusion of trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for granting bail but could not controvert the aforesaid facts.
5. Taking into consideration the gravity of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of her fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case till end of trial.
6. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.
7. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make herself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.
(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
8. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 2.8.2023 safi