HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 35043 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt. Poonam Agrawal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.165 of 2019 under Sectionsections 406, Section323, Section504 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur in Criminal Misc. Case No.908 of 2019 (SectionState vs. Poonam Agrawal) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had moved an anticipatory bail application bearing No.48 of 2019 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Hapur and the same has been rejected vide order dated 09.08.2019 without assigning any reasons.
As per the allegation made by the informant that an application was moved before the Superintendent of Police, Hapur on 06.03.2019 alleging therein that Priyanka Goel wife of Pankaj Goyal and Sweta Goyal wife of Amit Goyal both residents of 1411, New Shivpuri, Hapur purchased a plot no.190 area 137.1 sq. yard situate at Neharu Lane, Railway Road, Hapur from Poonam Agarwal wife of Sushil Agarwal and Sadhna Agrawal wife of Rajnish Agarawal and paid Rs.23,68,000/- through RTGS in their account. It is further alleged in the application by the informant that on 08.02.2019 the date was fixed for execution of the sale deed but the applicant herein and one Sadhna Agarwal refused to execute the sale deed. When the husband of the informant went to the house, they abuses and sent his back.
The Superintendent of Police, Hapur directed the police station Hapur Nagar for enquiry and for lodging of first information report and, as such, first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.165 of 2019 under Sectionsections 406, Section323, Section504 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no registered agreement to sale entered into between the parties for sale of plot in question even there was no written agreement to sale executed between the parties. It has also been submitted that as per the averments made in the first information report, if admitted (not admitting it), no criminal offence has been made out against the applicant. There is civil dispute between the parties and the applicant has never agreed either oral or by means of any written or registered document nor she was ever rady to sell the plot in question. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. does not disclose commission of crime by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no case is made out under Sectionsection 406 I.P.C. and the entire dispute is of civil in nature and the present criminal proceedings have been initiated only to harass and create pressure on the applicant. There are no injury report of the husband of opposite party no.2 and the informant has made a false allegations. It has also been submitted that from the perusal of the first information report as also from the statement of the witnesses, no prima-facie case under Sectionsections 406, Section323, Section504 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since this is a case of false implication, therefore, the anticipatory bail may be granted to him. Learned counsel further submitted that while rejecting the anticipatory bail application, the learned court below has not assigned any cogent reasons and has not appreciated the entirety of the matter.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the basis of the instructions, has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant not cooperating with the case and she is absconding. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed a Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.8408 of 2019 (SectionSmt. Poonam Agarwal and another vs. State of U.P. and others) for quashing the first information report dated 08.03.2019 registered as Case Crime No.165 of 2019 under Sectionsections 406, Section323, Section504 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur. The Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad vide order dated 04.04.2019 disposed of the said writ petition with observations that the applicant shall not be arrested subject to extending full cooperation during the investigation.
Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been submitted to the court concerned. The magistrate concerned has already issued the non-bailable warrant and also passed the order for the proceeding under Sectionsection 82 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the present applicant is not cooperating with the proceeding of the court below. Therefore, the court of Sessions Judge, Hapur vide order dated 09.08.2019 rejected the anticipatory bail application after assigning the cogent reasons. He has further submitted that in view of above facts, there are no forceful ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
There is no doubt that the anticipatory bail may be granted when there is material on record to show that prosecution was inherently doubtful or where there is material on record to show that there is a possibility of false implication. In the instant case, the investigation has been concluded and the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant.
It is also well settled law that while considering the question of grant of anticipatory bail, the Court prima facie has to look into the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the role of the accused. The Court is also bound down and must look into, while exercising its power to grant bail, the antecedents of the applicant and also the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, apart from other factors and parameters in view of the facts of each and every case.
There is no doubt that the anticipatory bail may be granted when there is material on record to show that prosecution was inherently doubtful or where there is material on record to show that there is a possibility of false implication.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
It is clarified that whatever is discussed or observed herein above is only a prima facie view of this Court, at this stage, and the same shall not tantamount to any expression or opinion on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 12.9.2019