High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 58 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 392, 447, 419, 42, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Mahrajganj Tarai, District Balrampur. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.11.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "Sri Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary, 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 Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary, as counsel for opposite party no. 2 in the next cause list. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary, counsel for opposite party no. 2, 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. 58 of 2024, under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 392, 447, 419, 42, 467, 468 and 471 IPC P.S.- Mahrajganj District - Balrampur. 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 being the legally wedded wife claimed the inheritance by way of moving an application under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code for mutation of the property of deceased in her favour, thereafter, it was decided in favour of the other persons and the mutation application was dismissed. He added that the matter if any, is of civil in nature and added that other set of allegation is that by way of introducing her name in the record of the Bank as a nominee, she obtained the fixed deposit amount, in her favour, but the fact remains that the deceased namely, Ram Naresh in his lifetime has made the present applicant the nominee and in result thereof, after his death, the aforesaid matured amount of F.D. was incredited in the account of the present applicant and there is no evidence at all that the aforesaid entry as an nominee in the bank records was forged. He next added that for giving the gravity to the offence, the false allegation was leveled against the applicant that she had beaten the informant, though, there is no injury report and i.e. totally false and baseless. Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant is a woman of 50 years of age and she is cooperating in the investigation proceedings and there is no previous criminal history of her coupled with the fact that she undertakes that she will cooperate with the investigation proceedings and would never abscond from the same. He also submits that there is acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the order of the Tehsildar, Judicial, Balrampur is evident that the claim of the applicant was on the basis of fake and forged paper prepared by the applicant. Further, by getting the forged entry in the records of the Bank, the amount of matured amount of the fixed deposit has been obtained, thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the complainant. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Meera Devi shall be released forthwith 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. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 13.01.2025. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits." From perusal of the order dated 27.11.2024, it transpires that the 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 thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Meera Devi till disposal of the trial subject to 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 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. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this protection. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 kkv/ KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 58 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 392, 447, 419, 42, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Mahrajganj Tarai, District Balrampur. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.11.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "Sri Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary, 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 Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary, as counsel for opposite party no. 2 in the next cause list. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary, counsel for opposite party no. 2, 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. 58 of 2024, under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 392, 447, 419, 42, 467, 468 and 471 IPC P.S.- Mahrajganj District - Balrampur. 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 being the legally wedded wife claimed the inheritance by way of moving an application under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code for mutation of the property of deceased in her favour, thereafter, it was decided in favour of the other persons and the mutation application was dismissed. He added that the matter if any, is of civil in nature and added that other set of allegation is that by way of introducing her name in the record of the Bank as a nominee, she obtained the fixed deposit amount, in her favour, but the fact remains that the deceased namely, Ram Naresh in his lifetime has made the present applicant the nominee and in result thereof, after his death, the aforesaid matured amount of F.D. was incredited in the account of the present applicant and there is no evidence at all that the aforesaid entry as an nominee in the bank records was forged. He next added that for giving the gravity to the offence, the false allegation was leveled against the applicant that she had beaten the informant, though, there is no injury report and i.e. totally false and baseless. Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant is a woman of 50 years of age and she is cooperating in the investigation proceedings and there is no previous criminal history of her coupled with the fact that she undertakes that she will cooperate with the investigation proceedings and would never abscond from the same. He also submits that there is acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the order of the Tehsildar, Judicial, Balrampur is evident that the claim of the applicant was on the basis of fake and forged paper prepared by the applicant. Further, by getting the forged entry in the records of the Bank, the amount of matured amount of the fixed deposit has been obtained, thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the complainant. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Meera Devi shall be released forthwith 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. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 13.01.2025. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits." From perusal of the order dated 27.11.2024, it transpires that the 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 thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Meera Devi till disposal of the trial subject to 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 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. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this protection. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 kkv/ KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench