Munni v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Civil Sectt. Lko

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The learned A.G.A says that he is ready to argue the matter on merits on the basis of instructions provided to him.

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 167 of 2025, under Section 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B I.P.C, Police Station- Wazirganj, District- Lucknow.

4. While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case.

5. It is stated that the applicant has been implicated only being a mother of the co-accused Fahim Abbas against whom the allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R No. 0167 of 2025, Police Station-Wazirganj, District-Lucknow West (Commissionerate Lucknow) are to the effect that he had duped the company by making forged signatures of the director and other officials and the amount in issue is Rs.24,27, 567/-, according 2 BAIL No. 9508 of 2025 to the aforesaid F.I.R.

6. It is further stated that to establish that the signatures on the vouchers are forged, there is no evidence available till date with the prosecution and as such it would be difficult for prosecution to establish that vouchers in issue are actually forged documents. Further submission is that the applicant, who is a home maker in fact was operating her account through her son and she is not aware about the transactions indicated in the F.I.R. Further submission is that it is not in dispute that a co-accused- son of the applicant was discharging his duties on the post of the Accountant in the Company known as Pronation Infratech Private Limited, of which the informant- Rais Ahmad is an authorized signatory and, therefore, it can be inferred, as there is no evidence till date with regard to forged signatures, that the transaction was made with the consent of the officials of the Company known as Pronation Infratech Private Limited. The prayer is to allow the bail application and enlarge the applicant on bail.

7. It is also submitted that considering the fact that the applicant is the mother of the co-accused against whom the allegations have been levelled and the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, she is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail, will cooperate in trial and will not influence the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel.

9. Sri Askari Husain, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also vehemently opposed the bail application. He, based upon an affidavit of the co-accused Fahim Abbas, submitted that the applicant is not entitled for enlargement on bail. Copy of the aforesaid affidavit provided to this Court is taken on record, after giving a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the applicant.

10. It is to be noted that perusal of the affidavit indicates that co-accused has deposited the amount in issue in the account of the present applicant, 3 BAIL No. 9508 of 2025 as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, which appears to be correct. Learned counsel for the applicant also stated that merely based upon the admission the judgment, of conviction cannot be passed as, it is for the prosecution to prove its case before the trial court.

11. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also taking note of the fact that applicant is the mother of the co-accused against whom the allegations have been levelled and that the applicant is having no criminal history, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

12. Let the applicant- Munni be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :- (i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence. (v) 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. (vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court 4 BAIL No. 9508 of 2025 on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

13. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

14. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. October 9, 2025 Preeti (Saurabh Lavania,J.) PREETI GAUTAM PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The learned A.G.A says that he is ready to argue the matter on merits on the basis of instructions provided to him.

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 167 of 2025, under Section 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B I.P.C, Police Station- Wazirganj, District- Lucknow.

4. While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case.

5. It is stated that the applicant has been implicated only being a mother of the co-accused Fahim Abbas against whom the allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R No. 0167 of 2025, Police Station-Wazirganj, District-Lucknow West (Commissionerate Lucknow) are to the effect that he had duped the company by making forged signatures of the director and other officials and the amount in issue is Rs.24,27, 567/-, according 2 BAIL No. 9508 of 2025 to the aforesaid F.I.R.

6. It is further stated that to establish that the signatures on the vouchers are forged, there is no evidence available till date with the prosecution and as such it would be difficult for prosecution to establish that vouchers in issue are actually forged documents. Further submission is that the applicant, who is a home maker in fact was operating her account through her son and she is not aware about the transactions indicated in the F.I.R. Further submission is that it is not in dispute that a co-accused- son of the applicant was discharging his duties on the post of the Accountant in the Company known as Pronation Infratech Private Limited, of which the informant- Rais Ahmad is an authorized signatory and, therefore, it can be inferred, as there is no evidence till date with regard to forged signatures, that the transaction was made with the consent of the officials of the Company known as Pronation Infratech Private Limited. The prayer is to allow the bail application and enlarge the applicant on bail.

7. It is also submitted that considering the fact that the applicant is the mother of the co-accused against whom the allegations have been levelled and the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, she is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail, will cooperate in trial and will not influence the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel.

9. Sri Askari Husain, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also vehemently opposed the bail application. He, based upon an affidavit of the co-accused Fahim Abbas, submitted that the applicant is not entitled for enlargement on bail. Copy of the aforesaid affidavit provided to this Court is taken on record, after giving a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the applicant.

10. It is to be noted that perusal of the affidavit indicates that co-accused has deposited the amount in issue in the account of the present applicant, 3 BAIL No. 9508 of 2025 as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, which appears to be correct. Learned counsel for the applicant also stated that merely based upon the admission the judgment, of conviction cannot be passed as, it is for the prosecution to prove its case before the trial court.

11. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also taking note of the fact that applicant is the mother of the co-accused against whom the allegations have been levelled and that the applicant is having no criminal history, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

12. Let the applicant- Munni be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :- (i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence. (v) 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. (vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court 4 BAIL No. 9508 of 2025 on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

13. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

14. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. October 9, 2025 Preeti (Saurabh Lavania,J.) PREETI GAUTAM PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench