# Smt. Rajbala v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 11
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11869 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rajbala-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49402
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 120-B,
467 & 468 - Anticipatory Bail - Forgery and
Cheating - False Affidavit - Criminal History -
Senior Citizen

The applicant, Smt. Rajbala, sought anticipatory
bail in Case Crime No. 0350 of 2022 under
Sections 420, 120-B, 467, and 468 IPC, alleging
false implication in a case involving a forged
affidavit submitted to influence a murder
investigation (Case Crime No. 212 of 2020). She
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claimed to be a 72-year-old woman with health
issues, cooperative in investigation, and argued
that no prima facie evidence linked her to the
alleged offences. The St. opposed, citing her
criminal history, but could not dispute the lack
of direct evidence. Held: (1) The anticipatory
bail application was allowed. (2) No prima facie
evidence established the applicant's role in
preparing or knowing about the forged affidavit,
and the ingredients for offences under Sections
420, 467, and 468 IPC were not met. (3) The
applicant's criminal history (14 cases, with
acquittals in two, bail in eight, protection in two,
and one dropped) was explained, and per
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs CBI, prior cases
without convictions do not justify denying
bail absent strong evidence. (4) As a senior
citizen with ailments, and with the charge
sheet filed, custodial interrogation was
unnecessary. (5) Anticipatory bail was
granted
with
conditions,
including
cooperation
with
investigation,
no
tampering with evidence or witnesses, and
surrender of passport, per Sushila Aggarwal Vs
St. (NCT of Delhi) and Shri Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia Vs St. of Punjab. (6) The court
emphasized that bail is the rule and jail the
exception under Article 21, absent exceptional
circumstances.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

11 All. Smt Rajbala Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
11
reason given by the learned Session court
for rejection of the anticipatory bail
application is incorrect.

11. Having considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in view the fact that there is an
old animosity between the parties
regarding which two FIRs had been
filed
on
previous
occasions;
that
besides the version of the informant,
there is no other material to support the
allegations; there is some variance in
the version of the incident and in the
statement of victim recorded under
Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.
and that the applicant is 60 years old
person
and
without
making
any
observations which may affect the
outcome of the case, I am of the view
that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for
making
out
a
case
for
granting
anticipatory bail to the applicant.

12. In view of the above, the
anticipatory bail application of the
applicant is allowed. In the event of
arrest/ appearance of applicant-Allama
Zamir Naqvi Alias Tahir before the
learned Trial Court in the aforesaid
complaint case, he shall be released on
anticipatory
bail
on
his
furnishing
personal bond and two solvent sureties,
each in the like amount, to the satisfaction
of
S.H.O./Court
concerned
on
the
following conditions and subject to any
other conditions that may be fixed by the
Trial Court:

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

(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
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness.

13. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the Sessions court for being brought to the
notice of the Presiding Officer who has
passed the order dated 15.02.2023.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 11
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 Cr.P.C. No. 11869 of 2023

Smt. Rajbala ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Udai Chandani

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 120-B,
467 & 468 - Anticipatory Bail - Forgery and
Cheating - False Affidavit - Criminal History -
Senior Citizen

The applicant, Smt. Rajbala, sought anticipatory
bail in Case Crime No. 0350 of 2022 under
Sections 420, 120-B, 467, and 468 IPC, alleging
false implication in a case involving a forged
affidavit submitted to influence a murder
investigation (Case Crime No. 212 of 2020). She
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claimed to be a 72-year-old woman with health
issues, cooperative in investigation, and argued
that no prima facie evidence linked her to the
alleged offences. The St. opposed, citing her
criminal history, but could not dispute the lack
of direct evidence. Held: (1) The anticipatory
bail application was allowed. (2) No prima facie
evidence established the applicant's role in
preparing or knowing about the forged affidavit,
and the ingredients for offences under Sections
420, 467, and 468 IPC were not met. (3) The
applicant's criminal history (14 cases, with
acquittals in two, bail in eight, protection in two,
and one dropped) was explained, and per
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs CBI, prior cases
without convictions do not justify denying
bail absent strong evidence. (4) As a senior
citizen with ailments, and with the charge
sheet filed, custodial interrogation was
unnecessary. (5) Anticipatory bail was
granted
with
conditions,
including
cooperation
with
investigation,
no
tampering with evidence or witnesses, and
surrender of passport, per Sushila Aggarwal Vs
St. (NCT of Delhi) and Shri Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia Vs St. of Punjab. (6) The court
emphasized that bail is the rule and jail the
exception under Article 21, absent exceptional
circumstances.

Case Law Cited:

1. Usha Cakraborty & anr. Vs St. of W.B. & anr.,
2023 Live Law (SC) 67

2. Prabhakar Tiwari Vs St. of U.P., (2020) SCC
OnLine SC 75

3. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & ors. Vs St. of
Pun., AIR 1980 SC 1632

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

5. Md Asfak Alam Vs St. of Jharkhand & anr.,
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2207 of 2023 (SLP (Crl.)
No. 3433 of 2023), decided on 31.07.2023

6. Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bihar & anr., (2014) 8
SCR 128

7. Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51
8. Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre Vs St. of
Maharashtra & ors., (2011) 1 SCC 694

9. Citation: Smt. Rajbala Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2023) 11, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application U/S 438

10. Cr.P.C. No. 11869 of 2023, decided on
23.11.2023 (All. HC, Allahabad)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. This anticipatory bail application
(under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved
seeking bail in Case Crime No.0350 of
2022, under sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468
IPC, P.S. Chhaprauli, District Baghpat,
during the pendency of application.

3. As per the prosecution case as
mentioned in the FIR lodged by the police
that the police went to Village Nangal, P.S.
Chhaprauli
for
investigation
on
the
application given by one Mr Yognder Singh
son of Bakhtawar and Yogendra Singh son
of Malook Singh, residents of Village
Nangal, P.S. Chhaprauli, District Baghpat,
who were of the same village. It is
alleged that the police informed to the
applicant Yogendra Singh, about the
application given by Yogendra Singh to
higher authorities, then the applicant
Yogendra Singh told that he does not
have any information about the said
complaint/application nor he had given
any such complaint. It is further alleged
that
on
thorough
interrogation,
the
applicant Yogendra told that about 01
year
ago,
one
Sharanveer
son
of
Harkhayal, resident of his village, along
with 04 other persons came to his house in
11 All. Smt Rajbala Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
13
a white Colored Scorpio car and the four
persons along with him were from village
Tikri, police station Doghat. The four said
persons narrated him the involvement of
applicant (Rajbala) in the Paramveer
Tugana murder case and asked him to give
an affidavit that at the time of Paramveer
murder case that happened in Village Kurdi
there was no woman present at the scene of
incident as by giving such an affidavit, life
of applicant (rajbala) will be saved from the
said murder case and saying this all the
four persons left his house. It is further
alleged that to get this affidavit signed,
after three days, the said Sharanveer son of
Harkhyal took the applicant Yogendra
along with another friend of his village
namely, Yogendra son of Bakhtawar to
Meerut in a vehicle and there got a blank
paper signed. It is further alleged that after
some time, it came to light that Sharanveer
and others had given a fake affidavit in
their name to higher authorities, regarding
which neither he had any information nor
know the contents of the letter and further
the same was not written by them. It is
further alleged that marriage of sister of
Sharanveer son of Harkhayal, resident of
his village, is solemnized in Village Tikri
and she used to go at the house of applicant
(Rajbala). It is therefore, alleged that the
police after investigation found that the said
letter was forged and signed fraudulently in
which the role of Sharanveer son of Harkhayal,
and four other unknown persons has been
found suspicious and further an attempt has
been made to influence the investigation of
Case Crime No. 212 of 2020, under Sections
147/148/149/34/307/302/506/120B
IPC,
in
which the applicant was accused, therefore the
present case has been lodged under Sections
420/120B/467/468 IPC.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for
the applicant that applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case due to political
rivalry. It is further submitted that applicant is a
senior citizen lady aged about 72 years old and
is suffering from various old age diseases. In the
FIR, false allegation has been levelled against
the applicant. The applicant is having definite
apprehension that she may be arrested by the
police any time.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that the entire allegation from
the face of F.I.R., where informant is a police
officer, is based upon the hearsay input, where
nothing surfaced during the course of
investigation to connect the applicant, prima
facie, with the allegations levelled against her in
the present FIR. It is also submitted that
applicant though involved in various case but
she has explained the criminal history according
to which she is on bail and has not been
convicted in any case. The applicant has been
made accused merely on the basis of
presumptions and assumptions. He submits that
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are missing in this case. He has not
committed any offence. There is no ingredient
of Section 420 of IPC in the FIR. It is further
submitted that to attract the offence under
Sections 467, 468 of IPC, it is mandatory
on the part of the prosecution to establish
that the alleged affidavit was either
prepared by the applicant or its preparation
was in the knowledge of the applicant. The
basis requirement/ingredients
to
bring
home the accusation under the alleged
offences are as under:-

Offence
punishable
under
Section 467 IPC, the basic ingredients
are:- (i) commission of forgery; (ii) that
such commission of forgery must be in
relation to a document purporting to be (a)
a valuable property; or (b) a will; or (c) an
authority to adopt a son; or (d) which
purports to give authority to any person to
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
make or transfer any valuable security; or
(e) the receive the principle, interest or
dividends thereon; or (f) to receive or
deliver any money, movable property or
valuable
security,
or
any
document
purporting to be an acquittance or receipt
acknowledging the payment of money, or
(g) an acquittance or receipt for the
delivery of any movable property or
valuable security.

Offence
punishable
under
Section 468, IPC, the basic ingredients are
(i) Commission of forgery, (ii) that he did
so
intending
that
the
document
or
electronic record forged shall be used for
the
purpose
of
cheating.
Offence
punishable under Section 420, IPC.

Offence
punishable
under
Section 420 IPC, the basic ingredients
are:- To constitute the said offence there
must be deception i.e., the accused must
have deceived someone; that by such
deception the accused must induce a
person (i) to deliver any property; or (ii) to
make, alter, destroy a whole or part of the
valuable security or anything which is
signed or sealed and which is capable of
being converted into a valuable property;
or (iii) that the accused must have done so
dishonestly. The offence punishable under
Section 120B, IPC, to constitute criminal
conspiracy, there must be agreement
between two or more persons. The
agreement should be to do or cause to be
done some illegal act, or some act which
is not illegal, by illegal means, provided
that where the agreement is other than
one to commit an offence, the prosecution
must further prove; or (iv) that some act
besides the agreement was done by or
more of the parties in pursuance of it.

6. In support of the above
contention, learned counsel for the
applicant has relied upon the recent case
of Usha Cakraborty and Another Vs
State of West Bengal and another, 2023
Live Law (SC) 67. It is further submitted
that Section 438 Cr.P.C. provides that any
person who has reason to believe that he
may be arrested on accusation of having
committed a non bailable offence, in the
event of arrest shall be released on bail,
and the court may, after taking into
consideration, interalia, the following
factors, namely, (i) the nature and gravity
of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of
the applicant including the fact as to
whether he has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a court in
respect of any cognizable offence; (iii)
the possibility of the applicant to flee
from
justice
and;
(iv)
where
the
accusation has been made with the object
of injuring or humiliating the applicant
by having him so arrested. It is submitted
that in the present case, applicant has
been criminal history of fourteen cases
including the present case and she has
explained the same in paragraph no. 55 of
the affidavit in a tabular form, as per
which she has been acquitted in two
cases, enlarged on bail in eight cases,
protection has been granted in two cases
and one case has been dropped.

7. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant that despite the
alleged offence being grave and serious,
and there being several criminal cases
pending against the accused, these factors
by themselves cannot be the basis for
refusal of prayer for bail, which includes
anticipatory bail also. In support of his
argument, he relied upon the case of
Prabhakar Tiwari Vs State of UP, (2020)
SCC Online SC 75. It is further submitted
that there is no direct or indirect evidence
against the applicant to bring-out her role in
participation of alleged offence.
11 All. Smt Rajbala Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
15

8. It is strenuously submitted by
learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has joined the investigation as
and when required by the Investigating
Officer. He further submitted that there is
not even an iota of admissible evidence
against the applicant and she has been
falsely implicated. He further submitted
that now the charge sheet stands filed, so
there is no requirement of any sort of
custody or custodial interrogation of the
applicant. In support of his argument,
learned senior counsel relied upon the
judgements of Shri Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia and others Vs state of Punjab,
AIR 1980 SC 1632; Sushila Aggarwal
and others Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.

9. Learned counsel has also drawn
attention of the Court towards a recent
judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Md Asfak Alam Vs The State of
Jharkhand
and
another
(Criminal
Appeal Nos, 2207 of 2023 arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.
3433 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023,
wherein the Apex Court emphasizes the
paramount importance of personal liberty
and issued landmark guidelines regarding
anticipatory bail. The Apex Court has
held that arrest should not be made
routinely, and the exercise of this power
must be guided by the necessity of
custodial investigation or preventing the
accused from tampering with evidence or
influencing witnesses. The Apex Court,
referring to various cases, including Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another,
(2014) 8 SCR 128, to lay down the
guidelines for granting anticipatory bail,
emphasizes that such bail should be granted
unless there are exceptional circumstances.
It is, therefore, prayed that applicant shall
abide with all the conditions imposed by
this Court, if granted anticipatory bail by
this Court.

10. Learned AGA has opposed the
prayer for bail, but could not dispute the
said facts.

11. While considering bail application
of the accused with a criminal history, it
throws an onerous responsibility upon the
Courts
to
act
judiciously
with
reasonableness because arbitrariness is the
antithesis of law. The criminal history must
be of cases where the accused was
convicted,
including
the
suspended
sentences and all pending FIR, wherein the
applicant stands arraigned as an accused. In
reckoning the number of cases as
criminal
history,
the
prosecutions
resulting in acquittal or discharge, or
when Courts quashed the FIR; the
prosecution
stands
withdrawn,
or
prosecution filed a closure report; cannot
be included. Perusal of the explanation of
criminal history in tabular form under
paragraph no. 55 shows that applicant has
been acquitted in two cases and one cases
has been dropped and in rest cases she is
either on bail or has been granted
protection. Four cases appears to have been
slapped by the prosecution after the present
case.

12. It is cardinal principle that Bail is
a rule and Jail is an exception, which has
been well recognized by Apex Court more
specifically on the touchstone of Article 21
of the Constitution. The said principle has
been reiterated by the Apex Court in
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central
Bureau of Investigation and another,
2022 (10) SCC 51.

13. Learned AGA could not show any
exceptional circumstances which would
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
warrant denial of bail to the applicant. No
material, facts or circumstances has been
shown by learned AGA for the State that
the accused may tamper with the evidence
or witnesses or the accused is of such
character that her mere presence at large
would intimidate the witnesses or that
accused will use her liberty to subvert
justice or tamper with the evidence.

14. Hence without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case and
considering the nature of accusations and
antecedents of applicant, she is directed to
be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the
Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs.
State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online
SC 98. The future contingencies regarding
anticipatory bail being granted to applicant
shall also be taken care of as per the
aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. This
Court has also taken into consideration the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Siddharam Satiligappa
Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and
others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941,
wherein the Apex Court has reiterated the
law laid down by the Constitutional Bench
in the Case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh
Sibbia and others, reported at (1980) 2
SCC 665. Further this court has also
considered that the applicant herein is a
lady accused, a senior citizen of 72 years
and is suffering from various old age
ailments. In absence of prima facie strong
evidence a person cannot be denied bail on
the ground that he or she was having
several cases against him/her. If the
material on record is not sufficient in view
of the court to establish reasonable prima
facie case bail cannot be denied based upon
antecedents, though in the present matter,
criminal history is well explained. It would
be a different matter altogether where bail
is sought, but the prosecution makes out a
reasonably strong prima facie case based
upon material in such eventuality the
antecedents of the case may be extremely
relevant for consideration.

15. In the event of arrest, the
applicant shall be released on anticipatory
bail. Let the applicant Smt Rajbala
involved in the aforesaid crime be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing a
personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court concerned
with the following conditions:-

(1) The applicant shall co-operate
with the Investigating Officer during
investigation and shall report to the
Investigating Officer as and when required
for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(2) 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;
and

(3) The applicant shall not leave
the country during the currency of trial
without
prior
permission
from
the
concerned trial Court.

(4) The applicant shall surrender
her passport, if any, to the concerned Court
forthwith. Her passport will remain in
custody of the concerned Court.

(5) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence and the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law to ensure presence of
the
applicant.
11 All. Banti Sharma @ Brahm Prakash Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
17

(6) In case, the applicant misuses
the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may
take appropriate action in accordance with
law and judgment of Apex Court in the
case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of
Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

(7) The applicant shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,
(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court default of this
condition is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of his bail and proceed against his in
accordance with law.

16. In default or misuse of any of the
conditions,
the
Public
Prosecutor/
Investigating
Officer/
first
informantcomplainant is at liberty to file appropriate
application for cancellation of anticipatory
bail granted to the applicant.

17. With the aforesaid observations/
directions, the application stands disposed
of.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 17
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 Cr.P.C. No. 11952 of 2023

Banti Sharma @ Brahm Prakash Sharma
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ravi Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 438, 482, 397, 239 & 41A - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
420 & 406 - Anticipatory Bail - Cheating and
Criminal Breach of Trust - Forum Shopping -
Pending Regular Bail Application

The applicant, Banti Sharma @ Brahm Prakash
Sharma, sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime
No. 02 of 2019 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC,
alleging false implication in a case where he, as
a company supervisor, was accused of usurping
money deposited as policy bonds. He claimed
cooperation during investigation, compliance
with Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and no criminal
history, noting prior unsuccessful challenges to
the charge sheet and discharge application. The
St.
opposed,
citing
the
applicant's
nonappearance, issuance of a non-bailable warrant
(NBW), and a pending regular bail application,
arguing
forum
shopping.
Held:
(1)
The
anticipatory bail application was rejected as
devoid of merit. (2) Filing an anticipatory bail
application while a regular bail application was
pending constituted misuse of the court's
process. (3) The applicant's multiple prior
petitions (two under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
one revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.) and
failure to appear before the trial court despite
an NBW indicated forum shopping, per K.
Jayaram Vs BDA and Shivam Vs St. of U.P.. (4)
The
court
found
no
grounds
to
grant
anticipatory bail, clarifying that observations
were limited to the bail application and would
not affect the trial's merits.

Case Law Cited:

1. K. Jayaram Vs BDA, (2022) 12 SCC 815

2. Shivam Vs St. of U.P. & anr., AIROnline 2021
All 484

3. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.)
No(s)
5191
of
2021,
decided
on
07.10.2021