Smt. Maqbool Fatima vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, J

This first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.2388/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the IPC.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that, the complainant/non-applicant No. 2 preferred a written complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC before the concerned trial Court stating that the applicant is his step-mother and his father late Abdul Rashid has died on 24.02.2021. After the death of his father, he preferred an application for succession against his father's saving account No. 08229040049. It was revealed to him that the applicant along with the other co-accused had preferred an application for mutation of certain properties belonging to his late father before the competent authorities and in the said mutation application, the applicant along with other co-accused have stated themselves to be the lone successors of Late Abdul Rashid Siddiqui. He also alleged that his father during his life time has received a compensation amount of Rs. 78,67,552/- in his bank account against the acquisition of his property and the portion of the said amount has also been withdrawn by the applicant and the other co-accused and at present Rs. 30,79,530.60/- is remaining in the account of Late Abdul Rashid Siddiqui. In this respect, it is imperative to state here that from a bare perusal of the saving account of Late Abdul Rashid Siddiqui i.e. father of the complainant/non- applicant No. 2 and husband of the applicant had himself withdrawn the portion of the aforesaid amount during his life time and in order to implicate the applicant along with other co-accused, the complainant/non-applicant No. 2 had made false statement while concealing the bank details of Late Abdul Rashid Siddiqui and the trial Court also without calling for the record from the concerned bank had registered the alleged ofence against the applicant and other co-accused. It is also worth stating here that the trial Court while relying upon the sole testimony of the complainant, had registered the ofence under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC without appreciating the fact that according to the own averments of the complainant, there was no evidence, even no allegation of forgery or using forged documents as genuine one. After registration of the ofence, the applicant moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned trial Court, which without appreciating the old age i.e. more than 75 years, of the applicant had rejected the anticipatory bail application of her.

Learned counsel for the applicant appearing through Video Conferencing submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and prima facie the ingredients of the alleged ofences are not attracted against her. He further submits that the applicant is old lady aged about more than 75 years at present and is sufering from various old age ailment, even she is unable to walk and her eye-sight is also too low. The learned trial Court while rejecting the application failed to consider the age and ailments of the applicant, she was liable to be enlarged on bail. He also submits that the learned trial Court also failed to appreciate that the complainant had levelled false allegation of embezzlement of amount from the account of Late Abdul Rashid Siddiqui and from a bare perusal of the bank statement of Late Abdul Rashid Siddiqui, it is vividly apparent that Late Abdul Rashid Siddiqui during his lifetime himself had withdrawn the sum on various date and there is no evidence at all that at any point of time, a single penny would have been withdrawn by the applicant. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Siddharam Satingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2011 SC 312.

On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the non-applicant opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of dispute, the material available on record and also considering the age of the applicant at present i.e. 75 years, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicant-Smt.Maqbool Fatima is allowed. If the applicant surrenders herself before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur within 20 days from today and furnishes a personal bond with a solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the said Court, she be released on bail.