Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13486 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt. Sonu Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Bajpai
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
(1) Heard Shri Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A and perused the record.
(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that she has every reason to believe that she may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no.96 of 2021, under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Mathura.
(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting her anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions.
(4) Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2019), which read thus :
"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."
(5) After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020(3) ADJ
575 in which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those pleadings/reasons in this regard, this Court is satisfied that the reasons mentioned therein are quite convincing to entertain the present anticipatory bail application before this Court itself.
(6) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate 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.
(7) From the F.I.R. it is evident that there is specific allegation against the applicant of committing fraud upon the informant in the sale deed. It has been specifically mentioned that the property in question is free from all encumbrances but in fact the applicant has taken a loan of Rs.60 lacs from Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. This fact was concealed by the applicant.
(8) Taking into account the severity of allegations, this Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021
M. Kumar Digitally signed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Date: 2021.07.29 11:51:18 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad