# Dr. Archana Gupta v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 804
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-15
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9023 of 2022
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-archana-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-49220
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
438
-
3 All. Dr. Archana Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
805
Anticipatory Bail - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 419, 420 ,467, 468 & 471
- when the accused is 'absconding' and
declared as a 'proclaimed offender' - there
is no question of granting anticipatory bail
- when a person against whom a warrant
had been issued and is absconding or
concealing himself in order to avoid
execution of warrant and declared as a
proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82
of the Code he is not entitled to the relief
of anticipatory bail.(Para - 7)
Charge-sheet filed against applicant - willfully
absented herself before trial court - due to this
trial against applicant could not commence -
process U/s 82 CrPC initiated against applicant -
declared an absconder - anticipatory bail
rejected by sessions court.(Para - 8)

HELD:-Accusation
against
applicant
well
founded. Applicant not entitled to anticipatory
bail
due
to
her
declaration
as
an
absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of
Section 82 of the Code. (Para - 8)

Anticipatory bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Prem Shankar Prasad Vs St. of Bihar , Criminal
Appeal No. 1209 of 2021

## Text

804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of this Court passed in Shivam vs. State of
U.P. and another (supra), as it is an
admitted fact that the applicant had agitated
the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this
Court twice and failed. Paragraph 45 of the
judgement is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"45) When the anticipatory bail is
sought by an accused after submission of
charge-sheet against him, the following
particulars are required to be given in the
anticipatory bail application to arrive at
correct conclusion whether the charge-sheet
submitted
against
the
accused
can
withstand the requirements of law of
investigation as considered above and also
the consideration made by the Apex Court
in various judgements in this regard :-

(i) The charge-sheet along with the
entire
material
collected
by
the
Investigating Officer should be made part
of the anticipatory bail application;

(ii) Clear pleading with reference to
the material on record should be made
stating under which sub-paragraph of
paragraph 41 stated hereinabove, the case
of the applicant is covered;

(iii) Clear pleading should also be
made that the case of the applicant is not
barred
by
paragraph
43
mentioned
aforesaid;

(iv) There should be clear averment in
the affidavit in support of the anticipatory
bail application that the applicant has not
challenged the charge-sheet before this
Court in any proceeding;

(v)
In
case
the
applicant
has
approached this Court by way of any other
proceedings after submission of chargesheet and has obtained any order in any
proceedings, the same shall be disclosed in
the anticipatory bail application; and (vi)
Clear pleading should be made in the
anticipatory bail application that after
submission of charge-sheet, the applicant
has not approached any court and no such
proceeding is pending."

17. The N.B.W. and proceedings
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are
already complete and the applicant is
having criminal antecedents to his credit.
The allegations against the applicant are of
serious nature. The case law of Bhajan Lal
(supra) do not apply to the present case.

18. On due consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and considering the nature of
accusations
and
antecedents
of
the
applicant and the case laws produced by
learned counsel for applicant, I do not find
that the applicant is entitled to be released
on anticipatory bail in this case.

19. In view of the above, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant is rejected.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 804
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9023
of 2022

Dr. Archana Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Puneet Bhadauria

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
438
-
3 All. Dr. Archana Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
805
Anticipatory Bail - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 419, 420 ,467, 468 & 471
- when the accused is 'absconding' and
declared as a 'proclaimed offender' - there
is no question of granting anticipatory bail
- when a person against whom a warrant
had been issued and is absconding or
concealing himself in order to avoid
execution of warrant and declared as a
proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82
of the Code he is not entitled to the relief
of anticipatory bail.(Para - 7)
Charge-sheet filed against applicant - willfully
absented herself before trial court - due to this
trial against applicant could not commence -
process U/s 82 CrPC initiated against applicant -
declared an absconder - anticipatory bail
rejected by sessions court.(Para - 8)

HELD:-Accusation
against
applicant
well
founded. Applicant not entitled to anticipatory
bail
due
to
her
declaration
as
an
absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of
Section 82 of the Code. (Para - 8)

Anticipatory bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Prem Shankar Prasad Vs St. of Bihar , Criminal
Appeal No. 1209 of 2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
learned counsel for the first informant.

2. The present application under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant
seeking
anticipatory
bail
apprehending arrest in Case Crime No. 460
of
2017,
under
Sections-
419/420/467/468/471 IPC, Police Station
Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the applicant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel further
submits that as per the allegations in the
FIR that the first informant is the owner
and in actual physical possession over the
Araji Gata No. 151/1 measuring area
0.5320 hectare out of 2.3960 hectare
situated at Mauja Rajmau, Tehsil- Jawant
Nagar, Etawah and her name is duly
recorded in the Revenue Records. With
intention to grab her property, the applicant
has executed an agreement to sale to one
anonymous
lady
Prabha
Devi,
W/o
Ramchandra and thereafter on 21.4.2017,
he has executed sale deed in her favour and
as such, on the basis of forged and fictitious
sale deed the applicant wanted to grab the
property of the first informant.

4. The counsel for the applicant
further submits that the whole prosecution
story is totally false and concocted. The
applicant purchased the land from one
Prabha Devi, W/o Ramchandra after
verifying the revenue records. The first
agreement to sale was executed between
the parties till then there was no dispute
raised by anyone with regard to the
property in question. At present, the
applicant is in actual physical possession of
the property in question and when she
started to raise construction thereon for her
hospital, the first informant demanded hush
money. The first informant is a prominent
lady and was the Village Pradhan of the
erstwhile session and when the applicant
refused to do so, then the first informant
lodged the FIR on the basis of false and
fictitious grounds with allegations that the
sale
deed
was
executed
through
impersonation. It is further submitted that
the actual name of the first informant is
Kanthsri @ Prabha Devi, W/o Ramchandra
@ Rambabu. Thereafter the first informant
filed civil suit for cancellation of sale deed
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the property in question by means of
Original Suit No. 433/2017 which is
pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.),
Etawah. In fact, the applicant herself
subjected to a fraud committed by the first
informant
herself
against
which
the
applicant herself lodged an FIR registered
as
case
crime
no.
484/2017,
U/s
420/406/467/468 against the first informant
and others on 2.7.2017.

5. The learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that the applicant
is the bonafide purchaser. Earlier after
filing of the charge-sheet against the
applicant, she approached this Court by
means of Application U/s 482 CrPC No.
25709 of 2019 which is still pending before
this Court and till today no interim order
has been passed and ultimately, the
applicant moved the anticipatory bail
application before the sessions court
concerned but the same was duly rejected.
It is further submitted that during course of
investigation, the applicant has been
protected from arresting till filing of
charge-sheet by a coordinate bench of this
Court passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition
No. 19374 of 2017 vide order dated
18.9.2017. There is civil dispute between
the parties. During course of investigation,
the applicant fully cooperated with the
investigation. But the Investigating Officer
without collecting any cogent and credible
evidence
submitted
the
charge-sheet
against the applicant. It is further submitted
that proceedings U/s 82 CrPC was initiated
against the applicant in a routine manner.
The applicant is ready to cooperate with the
trial.

6. The learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that insofar as the
maintainability of the anticipatory bail after
issuance of process U/s 82 CrPC is
concerned, the counsel for the applicant
relies upon the judgement of this Court
passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 4645 of 2022. The relevant
portion of which is being reproduced
hereunder:

"25. The Apex Court has restrained
the
proclaimed
offender
to
seek
anticipatory bail. The person who is not
following
the
process
of
law
and
deliberately avoiding the investigation
despite all necessary steps have been taken
by the investigating officer to apprise him
to
cooperate
with
the
process
of
investigation, e.g. summons have been
served but to no avail, thereafter bailable
warrants have been served but again he /
she
is
not
cooperating
with
the
investigation for no plausible and cogent
reasons, lastly non-bailable warrant has /
have been served but there is no heed
thereon, then the investigation officer has
got no option except to seek proclamation
u/s 82 / 83 Cr.P.C. It is also relevant to
note here that the court concerned must
ensure before taking any coercive steps
that
all
the
aforesaid
proceed,
i.e.
summons, bailable warrants and nonbailable warrants have been duly served
upon the person and he / she is deliberately
avoiding the same. Issuing summons,
bailable
warrant
and
non-bailable
warrants would not suffice but what is most
important is its service upon the person
because unless and until such process is
served no further coercive step should be
taken in view of the dictum of Apex Court
in re: Inder Mohan Goswami (supra)
inasmuch as these coercive steps are
directly related with the liberty of the
person which is protected under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.

26. Therefore, if the aforesaid process
is avoided by the person, any appropriate
3 All. Dr. Archana Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
807
application for seeking proclamation can
be filed by the investigating officer
supporting with an affidavit to apprise the
court concerned as to how despite the
summon, bailable
warrant
and
nonbailable warrant having been served upon
the person he / she is deliberately avoiding
to cooperate with the investigation and the
court after having proper satisfaction on
the averments of such application may
issue proclamation. Only under these
circumstances that person may be declared
as proclaimed offender and his / her
anticipatory bail application should not be
heard. In other words, before filing
anticipatory bail that person should be
proclaimed
offender
and
his
/
her
anticipatory bail application will loose the
right of hearing on merits."

7. Learned AGA as well as the
counsel for the first informant vehemently
opposed the prayer of the applicant and
submitted that the charge-sheet has already
been submitted against the applicant in the
year 2018 and the case is pending since
then. After filing of charge-sheet, the
applicant deliberately absented herself from
the proceedings. Consequently, the process
U/s 82 CrPC has been initiated against the
applicant on 22.2.2022 and she has been
declared an absconder. It is also submitted
that the applicant approached the learned
court below for seeking anticipatory bail
much later after having been declared as
absconder
and
the
anticipatory
bail
application was rejected by the sessions
court on 18.8.2022. Due to non-cooperation
of the applicant, the trial is still pending
before the trial court. Sufficient evidence is
available against the applicant. There is no
ground for false implication of the
applicant. Thus, the application of the
applicant is liable to be rejected. He further
relies upon the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad
vs. State of Bihar decided on 21.10.2021
in Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2021. The
relevant para of which is being reproduced
hereunder:

"16. Recently, in Lavesh v. State (NCT
of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730] , this Court
(of which both of us were parties)
considered the scope of granting relief
under Section 438 vis--vis a person who
was
declared
as
an
absconder
or
proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82
of the Code. In para 12, this Court held as
under : (SCC p. 733)

"12.
From
these
materials
and
information, it is clear that the present
appellant
was
not
available
for
interrogation and investigation and was
declared as 'absconder'. Normally, when
the accused is 'absconding' and declared as
a 'proclaimed offender', there is no
question of granting anticipatory bail. We
reiterate that when a person against whom a
warrant had been issued and is absconding
or concealing himself in order to avoid
execution of warrant and declared as a
proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82
of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of
anticipatory bail."

8. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view
that the accusation against the applicant is
well founded. After filing of the chargesheet against the applicant, she wilfully
absented herself before the trial court and
due to this, till today trial against the
applicant could not commence. Moreover,
it is clear from the above decision that if
anyone
is
declared
as
an
absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of
Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to
the relief of anticipatory bail. Thus, this is
not a fit case for anticipatory bail as per law
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
propounded
by
the
Apex
Court.
Consequently, the application U/s 438
CrPC is hereby rejected.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 808
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10800
of 2022
(U/s 438 Cr.P.C.)

Akhlakh Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp.Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Tawvab Ahmed Khan

Counsel for the Opp.Party:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 41A & 438 -
Anticipatory Bail - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 365, 342 & 420 - Uttar
Pradesh
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act 2021 - Section
3, 5(1) - no person shall convert, either
directly or otherwise, any other person
from one religion to another by use or
practice
of
misrepresentation,
force,
undue influence, coercion, allurement or
by any fraudulent means - No person
shall abet, convince or conspire such
conversion - Pre-arrest bail is to strike a
balance between the individual's right to
personal freedom and the right of the
investigating agency to interrogate the
accused as to the material so far collected
and to collect more information which
may
lead
to
recovery
of
relevant
information. (Para - 12)

Complainant was promised employment by coaccused - taken to a Madarssa and a mosque -
pressure was exerted upon him to convert his
religion - managed to escape - Allegations made
in FIR - applicant involved in forcing people to
convert their religion.(Para - 8,12 )

HELD:-Prima Facie, offence made out against
applicant. Other co-accused persons already
granted regular bail. Grant of anticipatory bail
may hamper the custodial interrogation and will
lead to nondisclosure of useful information and
material facts and information. No case for
exercising its discretionary power under section
438 Code of Criminal Procedure made out in
favour of applicant. (Para - 12,13)

Anticipatory bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1.
P.
Chidambaram
Vs
Directorate
of
Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24

2. Sadhna Chaudhary Vs St. of Raj. & anr., 2022
(237) AIC 205 (SC)

3. Sushila Aggarwal & ors. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)
& anr., (2020) 5 SCC Page 1 (106)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Tawvab Ahmed Khan,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. K.P.
Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. The present application has been
moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case
Crime No. 408 of 2022, under Sections
365, 342, 420 IPC and Section 3, 5(1) of
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act 2021, P.S.-
Kotwali,
District-Fatehpur,
with
the
prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant
may be released on bail.

3. As per contents of first information
report, the complainant has alleged that he
was promised employment by co-accused