Shashi Devi v. State of U.P

2. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to sign on the grounds of the appeal, forthwith.

3. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Indirajeet, Advocate on behalf of the private respondent is taken on record.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the private respondent as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

5. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Learned Special Judge SC/ST ACT, Barabanki, in bail application no. 335/2025 "Shashi Devi Vs. State of U.P." arising out of case crime No.222/2024 Under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. & section 3 (2) (Va) of SC/ST Act at Police Station Kursi, District Barabanki,

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was a property dispute in between the husband of the appellant and her jeth/brother-in-law and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant and her husband. Thereafter, private respondent was used as a tool by the jeth/brother-in-law of the appellant and on the basis of concocted facts, FIR was lodged with the allegation that the appellant had taken 2,50,000/- from the private respondent for facilitating the job to her nephew but no job was provided and forged appointment letter was provided by the appellant. He further submits that during the course of investigation, neither the source of money was investigated nor the said forged document was sent to FSL for examination. He further submits that the private respondent is associated with the gang of the persons that facilitates several accused persons for providing sureties. He further draws attention of this Court ₹ on the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581 and submits that the appellant is a housewife and she has been falsely implicated in this case due to property dispute and she is in jail since 17.01.2025. He further submits that the charge sheet has already been filed and there is no possibility of tempering of evidences. But the trial court has failed to appreciate all these facts and evidences provided by the appellant and passed impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

7. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the private respondent opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that after detailed investigation, charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. They also submit that applicant took ₹ 2,50,000/- in lieu of providing job to the nephew of the private respondent and prepared forged appointment letter. ₹

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; as per the prosecution case, private respondent had given 2,50,000/- to the appellant for obtaining job for her nephew but no job was provided by the appellant and forged appointment letter was prepared. As it is evident that appellant is a housewife and there is no evidence that she prepared a forged appointment letter but all these facts were not considered by the trial court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

9. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Learned Special Judge SC/ST ACT, Barabanki is hereby set aside. involved in the 10. Let the appellant- Shashi Devi aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she will not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 V. Sinha VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to sign on the grounds of the appeal, forthwith.

3. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Indirajeet, Advocate on behalf of the private respondent is taken on record.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the private respondent as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

5. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Learned Special Judge SC/ST ACT, Barabanki, in bail application no. 335/2025 "Shashi Devi Vs. State of U.P." arising out of case crime No.222/2024 Under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. & section 3 (2) (Va) of SC/ST Act at Police Station Kursi, District Barabanki,

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was a property dispute in between the husband of the appellant and her jeth/brother-in-law and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant and her husband. Thereafter, private respondent was used as a tool by the jeth/brother-in-law of the appellant and on the basis of concocted facts, FIR was lodged with the allegation that the appellant had taken 2,50,000/- from the private respondent for facilitating the job to her nephew but no job was provided and forged appointment letter was provided by the appellant. He further submits that during the course of investigation, neither the source of money was investigated nor the said forged document was sent to FSL for examination. He further submits that the private respondent is associated with the gang of the persons that facilitates several accused persons for providing sureties. He further draws attention of this Court ₹ on the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581 and submits that the appellant is a housewife and she has been falsely implicated in this case due to property dispute and she is in jail since 17.01.2025. He further submits that the charge sheet has already been filed and there is no possibility of tempering of evidences. But the trial court has failed to appreciate all these facts and evidences provided by the appellant and passed impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

7. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the private respondent opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that after detailed investigation, charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. They also submit that applicant took ₹ 2,50,000/- in lieu of providing job to the nephew of the private respondent and prepared forged appointment letter. ₹

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; as per the prosecution case, private respondent had given 2,50,000/- to the appellant for obtaining job for her nephew but no job was provided by the appellant and forged appointment letter was prepared. As it is evident that appellant is a housewife and there is no evidence that she prepared a forged appointment letter but all these facts were not considered by the trial court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

9. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Learned Special Judge SC/ST ACT, Barabanki is hereby set aside. involved in the 10. Let the appellant- Shashi Devi aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she will not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 V. Sinha VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench