Meenu vs. State Of U.P.And 2 Others

Held

The Court considered the arguments from both sides regarding the anticipatory bail application. The Court proposed that if the applicant deposited the disputed amount mentioned in the FIR with the court below via a bank draft in favour of the informant within one month, anticipatory bail could be extended. However, the applicant's counsel, upon receiving instructions, clearly stated the applicant's inability to accept this suggestion. After hearing both counsel and reviewing the case record, the Court found no sufficient grounds to allow the anticipatory bail application. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Facts

The applicant, Meenu, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0862 of 2019, registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by Arjun Singh, who alleged that he invested Rs. 3,72,000/- with a firm named Mrs. GOWAYINDIA, a proprietorship of KDM Enterprises, which was registered under the GST Act. The firm promised monthly returns on investment but failed to do so. The firm's registered office was found closed, and its proprietor, Anil Sain (Meenu's husband), was untraceable. Meenu was named as a co-accused in the FIR. The applicant argued her innocence, her status as a lady, and the delay in investigation. The State opposed the bail, citing Meenu's involvement in the alleged offense and her criminal history.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given her status as a named accused in a case involving alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 IPC? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contended that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. She argued that the investment was made with the Firm, which was not arrayed as an accused. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in *Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane* (2015) 12 SCC 781, suggesting the proceedings might not be maintainable. Furthermore, the applicant highlighted the delay in the investigation, with no charge sheet filed for over a year, and asserted that her custodial arrest was not necessary. The applicant also pointed to proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. regarding bail for women. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, asserting that the applicant is a named accused involved in the alleged offences. The State questioned the applicant's bonafide, noting her unwillingness to deposit the disputed amount. The State also highlighted the applicant's criminal history, involving 12 previous cases under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, arguing she is not entitled to leniency.