Sunita Agrawal vs State Of U.P.

Supplementary Affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including case diary and the charge sheet has also been submitted in this case.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved by the applicant- Smt.Sunita Agrawal for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 461 of 2013, under Sections 420,467,468,471,506 I.P.C., P.S.Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, during trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and she has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant and co-accused Uttam Kumar Agrawal are to the tune that they had taken Rs.2,31,000/- from the informant on the pretext of selling a Shop No.LGF 28B, situated at Viram Khand-5, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and pertaining to that no permission was taken from the LDA and also that the shop was constructed on the land earmarked for the purpose of parking and, therefore, the informant was defrauded for an amount of Rs.2,31,000/-.

Highlighting the above factual matrix, learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant and informant, namely Anuj Kumar Gupta had executed a settlement deed on 9.11.2017 wherein it was agreed that the applicant shall pay Rs.7,90,867/- to the informant in complete discharge of the debt as the informant had also filed case pertaining to Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in lieu of dishonour of two cheques earlier issued by the applicant in favour of the informant.

It is further submitted that in compliance of the above mentioned agreement, the applicant had paid in total Rs.7,90,868/- to the applicant and an endorsement to this effect has been made by the informant on the order sheet of the file of the subordinate court, a certified copy of which has been filed through Supplementary Affidavit dated 23.03.2021 and now nothing has remained due on applicant. It is further submitted that there was no intention of the applicant to defraud or to deceit anyone and it was due to financial constraints the applicant could not perform his part of the contract and dispute between the parties was of civil nature, however the same had been given the colour of criminal case.

It is further submitted that though a criminal history of 11 cases has been alleged alleged against the applicant, however the same has been explained in para-13 of the bail application and out of these 11 criminal cases, 5 cases pertaining to Case Crime Nos.362 of 2015, 380 of 2015,379 of 2015, 428 of 2015 and 555 of 2015 are not concerned with the applicant as she was neither named therein nor any charge sheet has been filed against her in these cases. So far as remaining five cases are concerned, in two cases the applicant has been released on bail and in one case pertaining to Case Crime No.1231 of 2018, Final Report has been submitted and in Case Crime No.1522 of 2018, further proceedings of the case has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court and a copy of the order has been placed at page no.48 of the bail application. So far as case pertaining to Gangsters Act is concerned, the bail could only be obtained after obtaining bail in all the predicate cases and in one case the bail application is pending before this Court.

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this matter since 18.11.2019 and all the offences alleged against the applicant are triable by the Magistrate and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail she may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

Learned A.G.A. however, opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that she has committed heinous offence and therefore, she is not entitled to be released on bail.

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record it is evident that allegations against applicant are to the tune that the informant had paid Rs.2,31,000/- to the applicant and her husband in lieu of purchasing a shop, however due to certain defect in the property, the transaction could not be concluded and the applicant had issued two cheques of Rs. 5,50,000/- in favour of the informant, however the same were dishonoured and proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was initiated by the informant against the applicant, however a written agreement was executed between the parties wherein it was agreed that the applicant shall pay Rs.7,90,867/- to the informant in the manner described therein. By referring to the order sheet of Complaint Case No.6363 of 2013, pending in the Additional Court No.10, Lucknow, it is overwhelmingly submitted by learned counsel for applicant that she had paid Rs. 7,90,868/- to the informant and an endorsement to that effect has also been made by the informant on the order sheet, a certified copy of which has been brought on record, by supplementary affidavit dated 23.03.2021.

The applicant is a lady, she is in jail in this matter since 18.11.2019. Charge sheet has already been filed in this matter and the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate.

Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for applicant only for the purpose of releasing the applicant on bail. The bail application is, thus, allowed.

Let the applicant - Smt.Sunita Agrawal involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) If any averment or any document which has been made the basis of submissions by learned counsel for applicant is found untruthful or false at any stage of the proceedings, the same shall alone be a ground for cancellation of the instant bail order.

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.