Savita Bharti @ Sareeta v. State of U.P

Heard Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.11 of 2023, under Sections 354, 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 414 and 34 IPC, Police Station Lalpur Pandeypur, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the director in the company Kaseeta Infra Protects Developer Ltd., is stated to have usurped amount of several persons, who have invested money in the company, on the pretext that they shall be accorded heavy profit to it.

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is a lady and wife of the main accused person Rajendra Prasad. The applicant was a silent partner in the company. She has nothing to do with the day today affairs of the company. The applicant is a house wife and she has been made an accused on account of her being the director of the company who was made so by her husband Rajendra Prasad. The case of the applicant is at a different footing to the co-accused person Rajendra Prasad.

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In all, eight FIRs' have been instituted against the applicant of similar nature. The applicant is on bail in three of those case and one case is under the Gangsters Act, as such the criminal history stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.01.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

Let the applicant- Savita Bharti @ Sareeta, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming her independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 26.10.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad