Priya Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kalra, Advocate with Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA with Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The applicant is in jail having been implicated in FIR No.0081 dated 03.03.2018, which has been registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC, at Police Station - Kichha, District- Udham Singh Nagar. She is a 36 year old woman who is in jail since 21.03.2018. Barring the period of one month, for which the applicant was granted short term bail, by this Court earlier, she has remained in jail.

The background here is that for construction of National Highway No.74, a large track of land was under acquisition by the State of Uttarakhand. In this acquisition grave anomalies, including criminal offences, are alleged against Government officials as well as against other persons such as the applicant who is the developer/contractor.

This Court has been informed that the main accused Mr. D.P. Singh who is the Special Land Acquisition Officer has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2019, though not arising from the same FIR in which the present applicant has been implicated. There are two criminal cases against the present applicant relating to National Highway No.74. First case being FIR No.47 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Rudrapur and second being FIR No.0081 dated 03.03.2018, which has been registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC, at Police Station - Kichha, District- Udham Singh Nagar.

This Court had earlier vide order dated 21.12.2018 rejected the bail application of the applicant in the aforesaid case. This Court has been informed that pursuant to the rejection of the aforesaid bail application, the present applicant had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court, where the applicant has been granted bail primarily on grounds that the applicant is a woman. The order dated 21.02.2019 of the Hon'ble Apex Court granting bail to the applicant reads as under:-

"1. Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, whereby the bail application filed by the accused-appellant came to be rejected.

The accused-appellant has been charged for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Considering the fact that the accused-appellant is a woman and that she is in custody from March, 2018 coupled with the fact that in June, 2018 charge-sheet has already been filed and on 16th February, 2019 charges have also been framed by the trial Court, we deem it appropriate to release the accused-appellant on bail in connection with First Information Report bearing No.0047/2018 dated 26.01.2018, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court. We order accordingly.

The order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed accordingly.

We make it clear that grant of bail is no expression of opinion either way on the merits of the case and the trial court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law."

On the same ground now the applicant seeks bail in the second case in which she is an accused, which is on similar charges except that there is no charge here under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The main allegation against the applicant in this case is that she had entered into an agreement for sale with certain agriculturists whose land was under acquisition and the implication is that the applicant was in conspiracy with public officials, knowing fully well in advance that a huge sum of money will go as a compensation, entered into such an agreement, even though no prudent person would enter into an agreement for sale for a land which is under acquisition.

Another co-accused in this case i.e. D.P. Singh had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being WPCRL No.429 of 2018, in which the following order was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.05.2018:-

"Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Aamir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mrs. Meena Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Heard.

List this case on 12.06.2018 for final disposal. It is directed that till 12.06.2018 the Investigation shall not be finalized, so far petitioner is concerned."

Therefore, investigation in D.P. Singh case has been effectively stayed by the above orders of this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant, however, would argue that the land for which the agreement for sale was executed was not the same land, which was under acquisition, for which an affidavit has been filed today before this Court.

Learned counsel for the State has tried to distinguish it on facts, and would argue that some of the land indeed was the area which was under acquisition.

At this stage it is not clear, nor would it be worthwhile to go into this aspect, as the applicant is for bail and the only consideration for grant of bail to the applicant here is that the applicant is a woman and she has a 10 year old girl child who needs to be looked after and on similar consideration, the Hon'ble Apex Court has already granted bail to the applicant in another case.

In view of the fact that the applicant is a woman who has a 10 year old girl child and that she is in jail since 21.03.2018, in my opinion a case of bail is made out. The applicant is released on bail the following conditions:-

(a) In case, the applicant has a passport, she shall surrender the same with the Investigating Officer and if she is not having one, she shall swear an affidavit to this effect before the trial court within a week from the date of her release from jail.

(b) It is further made clear that considering the nature of offence, the applicant shall be released on bail on two sureties, which shall not be less than Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) each, out of which, one surety shall be of a close blood relative or her husband.