Sushila Aggarwal v. State

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party as well as Mr. Adi Nigam, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/ complainant/ informant and perused the material placed on record.

3. The instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.805 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

4. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 17.01.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Heard Sri Satendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Harish Chandra Bajpai, learned AGA for the State.

2. Let notice be issued to the opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

3. Steps within a week. Office to proceed accordingly.

4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 0805 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station -Gomti Nagar, District -Lucknow. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

5. The present applicant is erstwhile employee of Lucknow Development Authority who was serving on the post of 'Junior Clerk'. As per prosecution story, so narrated in the F.I.R. the only allegation against the present applicant is that he uploaded the papers of property in question, however, he never uploaded those papers, rather his I.D. was hacked by one Company 'D.G. Tech Private Limited'. The investigation is going on and the present applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation. He is still cooperating in the investigation, therefore, no warrant has been issued against him. There is no flight risk as the applicant is having his permanent address and he undertakes to cooperate in investigation proceedings in future, therefore, his liberty may be protected till conclusion of the investigation in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

6. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties; other material available on record; the fact that the only allegation against the present applicant is that he uploaded the papers of property in question, however, he never uploaded those papers, rather his I.D. was hacked by one Company 'D.G. Tech Private Limited', investigation is going on and the present applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation, applicant is still cooperating in the investigation, no warrant has been issued against him, there is no flight risk as the applicant is having his permanent address and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation proceedings, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal (supra).

8. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.

9. List in the week commencing 24.02.2025 within top ten cases.

10. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Ajai Pratap Verma shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- I. that 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; II. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; III. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant; IV. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; V. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted. "

5. From perusal of the order dated 17.01.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Ajai Pratap Verma till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

7. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party as well as Mr. Adi Nigam, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/ complainant/ informant and perused the material placed on record.

3. The instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.805 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

4. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 17.01.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Heard Sri Satendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Harish Chandra Bajpai, learned AGA for the State.

2. Let notice be issued to the opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

3. Steps within a week. Office to proceed accordingly.

4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 0805 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station -Gomti Nagar, District -Lucknow. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

5. The present applicant is erstwhile employee of Lucknow Development Authority who was serving on the post of 'Junior Clerk'. As per prosecution story, so narrated in the F.I.R. the only allegation against the present applicant is that he uploaded the papers of property in question, however, he never uploaded those papers, rather his I.D. was hacked by one Company 'D.G. Tech Private Limited'. The investigation is going on and the present applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation. He is still cooperating in the investigation, therefore, no warrant has been issued against him. There is no flight risk as the applicant is having his permanent address and he undertakes to cooperate in investigation proceedings in future, therefore, his liberty may be protected till conclusion of the investigation in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

6. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties; other material available on record; the fact that the only allegation against the present applicant is that he uploaded the papers of property in question, however, he never uploaded those papers, rather his I.D. was hacked by one Company 'D.G. Tech Private Limited', investigation is going on and the present applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation, applicant is still cooperating in the investigation, no warrant has been issued against him, there is no flight risk as the applicant is having his permanent address and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation proceedings, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal (supra).

8. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.

9. List in the week commencing 24.02.2025 within top ten cases.

10. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Ajai Pratap Verma shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- I. that 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; II. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; III. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant; IV. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; V. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted. "

5. From perusal of the order dated 17.01.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Ajai Pratap Verma till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

7. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench