# Princess Mahi @ Saher Naqvi v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1850
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-18
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 12954 of 2022
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/princess-mahi-saher-naqvi-v-state-of-u-p-50279
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973- Section 438 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 506
- money taken by applicant to get
informant's wife admitted to job-money
also transferred in lieu of sale of plottransfer of money into the account of
applicant- Bail application rejected. (Paras
11 and 12)

HELD:
It is an admitted fact that the said amount of
Rs.50 lakhs has been transferred to the account
of the applicant by the informant, who is the
Director in company Kchipra Business Solution
Pvt. Ltd. The applicant is an Advocate and has
argued the matter in person and has also
admitted the fact of the said transfer of money
to her account, but has stated that she is unable
to do so as she is facing a case under Section
138 NI Act at Telangana, as such she is not sure
as to whom she has to repay the said amount.
(Para 11)

After hearing the parties, going through the
evidence on record and taking into consideration
the fact that a huge amount of Rs.50 lakhs has
been transferred to the account of applicant I
do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory
bail to the applicant. (Para 12)

Bail Application rejected. (E-14)

## Text

1850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
influential persons try to implicate their
rivals in false cases for the purpose of
disgracing them by detaining them in jail
for some time. It is true, such powers are to
be exercised in exceptional cases. The
prosecution cannot be permitted to be
converted into an arena to settle scores.

17. The deceased has expired as a result
of "septicaemia due to chronic illness of
multiple organs involvement". Thus, the death
cannot be termed as "not under normal
circumstances" as envisaged under Section 304B I.P.C. The ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C.
do not stand fulfilled. This case seems to be a
misuse of the dowry laws.

18. After hearing the rival contentions,
going through the record, considering the nature
of accusations and antecedents of the applicant
and taking into note the very fact that the cause
of death has been opined to be septicaemia due
to
chronic
illness
of
multiple
organs
involvement and also that there was no
complaint against the applicant or his family
members before the death of the deceased
person and also that no visible injury has been
observed on the body of the deceased person
internally or externally, the applicant is liable to
be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
"Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies
regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to
applicant shall also be taken care of as per the
aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

19. In view of the above, the anticipatory
bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let
the accused-applicant- Udit Arya be released
forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on
anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on
furnishing a personal and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). that the applicant shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as
and when required;

(ii). that the applicant shall not,
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India
without the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted
the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence
during the trial;

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/
intimidate the prosecution witness;

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before
the trial court on each date fixed unless personal
presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the
above conditions the court below shall have the
liberty to cancel the bail.

20. It is made clear that observations
made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding
the instant anticipatory bail application and shall
not affect the trial.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1850
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 12954
of 2022
(u/s 438 Cr.P.C.)

Princess Mahi @ Saher Naqvi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
5 All. Princess Mahi @ Saher Naqvi Vs. State of U.P.
1851
Sri Sujan Singh, Sri Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi,
Ms. Princess Mahi @ Saher Naqvi (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Anil Kumar Pal, Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973- Section 438 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 506
- money taken by applicant to get
informant's wife admitted to job-money
also transferred in lieu of sale of plottransfer of money into the account of
applicant- Bail application rejected. (Paras
11 and 12)

HELD:
It is an admitted fact that the said amount of
Rs.50 lakhs has been transferred to the account
of the applicant by the informant, who is the
Director in company Kchipra Business Solution
Pvt. Ltd. The applicant is an Advocate and has
argued the matter in person and has also
admitted the fact of the said transfer of money
to her account, but has stated that she is unable
to do so as she is facing a case under Section
138 NI Act at Telangana, as such she is not sure
as to whom she has to repay the said amount.
(Para 11)

After hearing the parties, going through the
evidence on record and taking into consideration
the fact that a huge amount of Rs.50 lakhs has
been transferred to the account of applicant I
do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory
bail to the applicant. (Para 12)

Bail Application rejected. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed by
the applicant in person is taken on record.

3. Heard Ms. Princess Mahi @ Saher
Naqvi, applicant in person, Sri Pankaj
Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the records.

4. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.930 of 2019,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506
I.P.C.
at
Police
Station
Colonelganj,
District Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge
her on anticipatory bail.

PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The FIR was lodged by Rakesh
Kumar, an ex-army-man, with the allegations
that the applicant Princes Mahi @ Saher
Naqvi had taken Rs.20 lakhs from him in the
year 2018 to get his wife admitted to a job in
junior high school. She had even introduced
the informant to one Rajeev Tripathi at the
office of BSA. The applicant is stated to have
neither returned the amount nor got the said job
to his wife and she kept on dilly dallying with
him. On 1.1.2019, the applicant is stated to have
taken Rs.50 lakhs from the informant in lieu of a
sale of a 200 square meters plot in Arazi No.86
of NK Mukherji Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad.
The said amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred
from the account no.37438827327 of Kchipra
Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. of State Bank,
Branch Sub-Area Cantt., Prayagraj to the bank
account no.6177000100027382 of the applicant
through NEFT. It transpired later on that the
documents of the said plot are fake and the said
forgery has been committed by the applicant in
conspiracy with other members of the family.
The applicant is stated to have fleeced and fooled
the informant on one pretext or other and even
threatened him.

6. The FIR was instituted at police
station
Colonelganj,
Prayagraj
on
25.10.2019 at about 01:12 a.m.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
1852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(Arguments of applicant-in-person)

7. The applicant in-person has pressed
the anticipatory bail application on the
following grounds:-

(i) that she has been falsely implicated
in this case and has nothing to do with the
said offence. The allegations with respect to
the supply of Rs.20 lakhs are per se false as
there is nothing on record to suggest that
any amount has been withdrawn from any
account or transferred to the applicant. The
said transaction is in cash, which is false.

(ii) that already final report (chargesheet)
has
been
submitted
and
the
cognizance by the trial court has been
taken. The FIR has been lodged against all
the family members just to harass them.

(iii) that after registration of FIR, the
applicant and co-accused person Rizwan
Ali (father of the applicant) had approached
this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.25063 of 2019, in which ad-interim
protection was granted to them vide order
dated 29.1.2020. The said order has been
filed as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit filed
with the bail application.

(iv) that after the submission of final
report (charge-sheet), the applicant had
challenged it by filing a Criminal Misc.
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.18674 of
2022 and prayed for quashing the entire
charge-sheet including the summoning
order dated 12.1.2022.

(v) that she is a bona fide person as is
evident from the fact that she had filed a
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11906 of 2022
praying for a direction to issue mandamus
to District Magistrate, Prayagraj regarding
illegal encroachment on plot no.86/1,
measuring area 2.05 hectare and plot
no.86/2, measuring area 0.864 hectare. The
said writ petition is pending before this
Court.

(vi) that transfer of Rs.50 lakhs to her
account is admitted, but the said amount has
been transferred from the account of the
company Kchipra Business Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. and the matter is between applicant and
the said company, that too is civil in nature
and the informant, who is a stranger to the
said transaction, has converted it into a
criminal case which is not sustainable in the
eyes of law.

(vii) that the agreement between the
applicant and the informant is a notarized
document and is not maintainable in the eyes
of law.

(viii) that the applicant is an Advocate
registered at Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh
since 2019. She has also argued at length that
when the applicant had cheated the informant
to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs, then there was no
occasion for the informant to transfer such a
hefty amount to her account, as such the
allegations leveled in the FIR are false.

(ix) that the informant is neither the
agent
nor
office
bearer
nor
in
the
management team of company, as such he
has no locus standi to lodge FIR.

(x) that she is facing a case under
Section 138 of NI Act at Telangana against
the dishonor of cheque with respect to the
said transfer of money through RTGS
mentioned in the FIR.

(xi) that the present FIR is a counterblast
to FIR No.1115 of 2019 lodged at police
station Colonelganj by the applicant against
Shyam Reddy and others.

(xii) that although the FIR lodged by her
has been lodged later on to the present FIR,
but the occurrence is of much before the
lodging of the present FIR.

(xiii) that the informant has not narrated
correct facts in the FIR as the said company
had granted a loan of Rs.65 lakhs to the
applicant and informant regarding the said
plot and the cheque of Rs.50 lakhs has
dishonored twice.
5 All. Princess Mahi @ Saher Naqvi Vs. State of U.P.
1853

(xix) that the reply to the notice given
by the company to her and the informant
falsifies the prosecution story. She had even
reported the matter to NHRC with respect
to the said supply of Rs.65 Lakhs as she
was being coerced to act as a conduit in
their illegal activities of human trafficking.

(xv) that the Investigating Officer has
not taken up the investigation properly and
has filed the present final report (chargesheet) only on the ground of transfer of the
said amount of Rs.50 lakhs to the account
of the applicant.

(xvi) that she does not have any
criminal antecedents to her credit, except
the two cases which have been lodged
against her regarding the same incident.
She has pressed hard that she being an
Advocate and lady is being harassed and
she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

(Arguments for the informant)

8. Learned counsel for the informant
has argued that the applicant has admitted
the fact that an amount of Rs.50 lakhs has
been transferred to her and the very fact has
also been mentioned in the order of the
Court passed in Criminal Misc. Application
U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.18674 of 2022. Learned
counsel has further stated that the applicant
had misused the process of the court by
taking it's refuge at the drop of the hat as in
addition to filing petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C.
challenging the final report (charge-sheet),
she has even filed a criminal revision
before this Court.

9. Learned counsel has further stated
that the applicant had even filed a Writ
Petition (Criminal) No.486 of 2022 before
the Apex Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India seeking anticipatory
bail, which was dismissed on the ground of
alternate remedy being available to the
applicant, although her anticipatory bail
application was already rejected by the
Sessions
Court,
Allahabad.
Learned
counsel has further stated that the final
report (charge-sheet) has already been filed
in the court against the applicant on
30.9.2022. Learned counsel has placed on
record the information issued by Subhash
Chandra
Diwakar,
Lekhpal,
Sadar,
Prayagraj stating that the the title of the
said land Arazi no.86/1, 86/2 is held by
municipal board at gata khewat no.1 and
the said property is not registered in the
name of Princes Mahi @ Saher Naqvi vide
report dated 7.9.2022, which has been
annexed as Annexure no.8 to the shortcounter affidavit dated 6.2.2023.

10. Learned counsel has stated that
this is an open and shut case with respect to
the applicant and she is not entitled for
anticipatory bail. She has even misled the
Apex Court in getting an order dated
3.3.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No.5412 of 2023.
The factum of final report (charge-sheet)
having been submitted against her was
concealed by her in the Apex Court.
Learned counsel has further stated that the
informant is the Director in the company
Kchipra Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. which
was formed after his superannuation from
Indian Army. The hard earned money of the
informant has been usurped by the guile of
the applicant misusing her licence to
practice as an Advocate.

CONCLUSION:

11. It is an admitted fact that the said
amount of Rs.50 lakhs has been transferred
to the account of the applicant by the
informant, who is the Director in company
Kchipra Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. The
applicant is an Advocate and has argued the
matter in person and has also admitted the
1854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fact of the said transfer of money to her
account, but has stated that she is unable to
do so as she is facing a case under Section
138 NI Act at Telangana, as such she is not
sure as to whom she has to repay the said
amount.

12. After hearing the parties, going
through the evidence on record and taking
into consideration the fact that a huge
amount of Rs.50 lakhs has been transferred
to the account of applicant, I do not find it a
fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicant.

13. The anticipatory bail application
is found devoid of merits and is,
accordingly, rejected.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1854
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 52326 of 2022

Suryansh Kharbanda ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri
Alok
Ranjan,
Sri
G.S.
Chaturvedi(Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Shiv Kumar Pal (G.A.), Sri O.P. Dwivedi
(A.G.A.), Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, Sri Vidit
Agarwal, Sri Ashwani Tripathi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973- Section 439 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506,
304-B & 120-B - Section 3⁄4 of Dowry
Prohibition
Act,1961
-first
informantfather of the deceased-husband and other
family
members-demand
of
dowry,
indulged in fight and instigated the
deceased to commit suicide-death by
hanging-within seven years of marriageno demand of dowry in suicide-applicant
was not at home on the date of incidenttreating written statement of witnesses
from complainant's side-statement under
section 161 CrPC- authority to be exercised
in the manner provided in the statute itselfpresumption under Section 113-A of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would not apply
automatically-offence under Section 306 of
IPC-abetment
of
suicide-abetment
is
constituted by instigating a person to
commit an offence-words "soon before
death" Section 304 B IPC-to be understood
in relative and flexible sense-words cannot
be construed as laying down a rigid time
period to be applied mechanically in each
case-Courts duty bound to consider bail
applications wholesomely- Bail granted-Bail
application
allowed-
botched
up
investigation-matter referred to DGP, Uttar
Pradesh Police to ensure free and fair
investigation. (Paras 26, 33, 38, 39,40, 41,
42, 44, 48, 50,51 and 57)

HELD:
The aforesaid entries in the case diary coupled
with the statements of Radhika and Kiran go to
suggest that the applicant had removed the
jewelries from the house on 12.11.2021 as the
deceased was putting the locker on fire and was
living in her sister's house and on the day and
time when the deceased committed suicide, he
was not at his home. (Para 26)

So far as taking the written statements of some
of the witness of the complainant's side and
treating the same as statement under section
161 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is well settled
that it is a normal rule of construction that when
a statute vests certain power in an authority to
be exercised in a particular manner then the
said authority has to exercise it only in the
manner provided in the statute itself. The
principle behind the rule is that if this were not
so, the statutory provision might as well not
have been enacted. (Para 33)

It is well settled that the mere fact that if a
married woman commits suicide within a period