Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14884 of 2021 Applicant :- Reetu Wadhwa Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Counsel for Applicant :- Raghav Dev Garg,Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raghav Dev Garg, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, Reetu Wadhwa, in RC No. 2192017(E)0017/EO-1/CBI, under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and substantive offence under Section 409 I.P.C., P.S. C.B.I., ACB, district-Ghaziabad.
Prior notice of this bail application was served to opposite parties and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
As per FIR certain loans were sanctioned by few Branch Officers in Ghaziabad (of PNB and other Banks as well) in favour of allottees of a housing project by the name of 'Foster Heights', being developed by M/s Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt., Ltd. During inquiry it was found that certain loans were sanctioned on several occasions for one flat and certain loans were also sanctioned to the allottees on flats which were neither sanctioned by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) nor were constructed by the builder.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was neither the sanctioning authority nor she has sanctioned any loan. She was only Processing Officer in Punjab National Bank and she only used to processing the documents for sanctioning of loan. There is no evidence on record, which shows that any amount was syphoned off or embezzled by the present applicant. Further submission is that the applicant was not chargesheeted by the CBI and the trial court has summoned the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There is also no evidence on record that any dishonesty was made by the present accused and the proceedings have been initiated against the present accused without any legal basis, and non- bailable warrant were issued against the applicant in a routine manner and if the applicant is being arrested, it will cause harm to her reputation and it will also humiliate the applicant. Further submission is that there is no criminal history against the applicant and applicant she has been promoted as bank manager. The applicant has definite apprehension that she may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and submitted that the applicant was involved in hatching a conspiracy with the builder and in view of above, she is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of F.I.R, the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an F.I.R has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349,the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant and also the second surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
List on 29.9.2021 before appropriate Bench.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/ Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish her address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.
2. The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial/ investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
3. The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischeif with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;
4. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case she has no passport, she will file his affidavit before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.
5. 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 heer from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
6. The applicant shall maintain law and order.
7. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
8. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.
9. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Faridul