Kalpana @ Soni v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another

to proceed with the matter with the assistance of Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Shri Kaushal Kishore Tewari, learned counsel for the complainant.

4. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.192 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Itaunja, District- Lucknow.

5. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on

23.11.2024 against two persons i.e. the applicant and her husband Raman, stating that the accused persons are related to the complainant, the complainant had given Rs.48,50,000/- for getting public employment through illegal means but she was given a forge appointment letter. The F.I.R. was lodged when the accused persons did not return the complainant's money.

6. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the 2 NABAIL No. 133 of 2025 following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

17.02.2025: "On 13.02.2025, the following order was passed:- "Sri Kaushal Kishor Tewari, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Kaushal Kishor Tewari, as counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in the next cause list. List/put up this matter on 17.02.2025 in the list of fresh cases. In the meantime, counsel for the applicant shall fetch the bank draft amounting Rs. 40,000/- as is alleged to be incredited in the account of the applicant." Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has fetched the bank draft amounting Rs. 40,000/- of Bank of Baroda dated 13.02.2025 and he placed the same before this Court, which is given to the complainant, present in the Court. The complainant is identified by Sri K.K. Tewari, Advocate appearing for him. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. P.S.- Itaunja District - Lucknow. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant was not involved in committing the offence and the amount which was repaid by the complainant, was in-consonance with the money transactions. He further added that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect her in the instant matter and the amount which was incredited in the account of the applicant has been repaid back through the above- said bank draft. He also added that the applicant is a woman and she is always ready to cooperate with the investigation proceedings thus, submission is that she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid on merits, but he could not dispute the fact that any amount more than Rs. 40,000/- is incredited in the account of the applicant. This Court has also noticed the fact that the amount has been repaid back by the applicant; the applicant is a woman and there is no complaint that she is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings. 3 NABAIL No. 133 of 2025 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Kalpana @ Soni shall be released forthwith, in case of her arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make herself 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 her 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 in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. List/put up this matter in third week of March, 2025. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits. The applicant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 24-02-2025 at

02.00 P.M., failing which, the Investigation Officer shall inform this court while filing the Counter Affidavit that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceedings or not."

4. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the materials collected during the investigation but the complainant has not filed any counter affidavit.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the Anticipatory Bail Application No.296 of 2025 filed by the co-accused Ramu has been rejected by means of an order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein it has been recorded that although the applicant (co-accused) has 4 NABAIL No. 133 of 2025 been granted interim anticipatory bail upon an undertaking that he would return the remaining amount, as he did not return the amount, his anticipatory bail application has been rejected.

6. In the case of Gajanan Dattatrey Gore vs. State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no such condition of return of any amount cannot be put in the orders granting anticipatory bail / bail to the applicant.

7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that it is the complainant himself who tried to secure public employment by illegal means by payment of money and after having failed in his illegal endeavours, the complainant has lodged a copmlaint; that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail on 17.02.2025 and the complainant has not filed any counter affidavit / objections and there is allegation of misuse of interim anticipatory bail by the applicant, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 17.02.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order. September 17, 2025 S. Shivhare (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

to proceed with the matter with the assistance of Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Shri Kaushal Kishore Tewari, learned counsel for the complainant.

4. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.192 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Itaunja, District- Lucknow.

5. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on

23.11.2024 against two persons i.e. the applicant and her husband Raman, stating that the accused persons are related to the complainant, the complainant had given Rs.48,50,000/- for getting public employment through illegal means but she was given a forge appointment letter. The F.I.R. was lodged when the accused persons did not return the complainant's money.

6. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the 2 NABAIL No. 133 of 2025 following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

17.02.2025: "On 13.02.2025, the following order was passed:- "Sri Kaushal Kishor Tewari, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Kaushal Kishor Tewari, as counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in the next cause list. List/put up this matter on 17.02.2025 in the list of fresh cases. In the meantime, counsel for the applicant shall fetch the bank draft amounting Rs. 40,000/- as is alleged to be incredited in the account of the applicant." Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has fetched the bank draft amounting Rs. 40,000/- of Bank of Baroda dated 13.02.2025 and he placed the same before this Court, which is given to the complainant, present in the Court. The complainant is identified by Sri K.K. Tewari, Advocate appearing for him. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. P.S.- Itaunja District - Lucknow. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant was not involved in committing the offence and the amount which was repaid by the complainant, was in-consonance with the money transactions. He further added that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect her in the instant matter and the amount which was incredited in the account of the applicant has been repaid back through the above- said bank draft. He also added that the applicant is a woman and she is always ready to cooperate with the investigation proceedings thus, submission is that she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid on merits, but he could not dispute the fact that any amount more than Rs. 40,000/- is incredited in the account of the applicant. This Court has also noticed the fact that the amount has been repaid back by the applicant; the applicant is a woman and there is no complaint that she is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings. 3 NABAIL No. 133 of 2025 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Kalpana @ Soni shall be released forthwith, in case of her arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make herself 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 her 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 in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. List/put up this matter in third week of March, 2025. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits. The applicant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 24-02-2025 at

02.00 P.M., failing which, the Investigation Officer shall inform this court while filing the Counter Affidavit that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation proceedings or not."

4. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the materials collected during the investigation but the complainant has not filed any counter affidavit.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the Anticipatory Bail Application No.296 of 2025 filed by the co-accused Ramu has been rejected by means of an order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein it has been recorded that although the applicant (co-accused) has 4 NABAIL No. 133 of 2025 been granted interim anticipatory bail upon an undertaking that he would return the remaining amount, as he did not return the amount, his anticipatory bail application has been rejected.

6. In the case of Gajanan Dattatrey Gore vs. State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no such condition of return of any amount cannot be put in the orders granting anticipatory bail / bail to the applicant.

7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that it is the complainant himself who tried to secure public employment by illegal means by payment of money and after having failed in his illegal endeavours, the complainant has lodged a copmlaint; that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail on 17.02.2025 and the complainant has not filed any counter affidavit / objections and there is allegation of misuse of interim anticipatory bail by the applicant, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 17.02.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order. September 17, 2025 S. Shivhare (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench