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

Held

The Court considered the arguments from both sides. The applicant sought anticipatory bail, emphasizing her innocence, status as a lady, and alleged procedural delays in the investigation. The prosecution opposed the bail, highlighting the applicant's named status in the FIR, her alleged complicity in cheating offences, and her significant criminal history. The Court initially suggested that anticipatory bail could be extended if the applicant deposited the disputed amount mentioned in the FIR with the court below within one month. However, the applicant's counsel expressed her inability to accept this suggestion. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the Court found no good ground to allow the application for anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Consequently, the application was rejected.

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Meenu Sain in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by Jai Prakash Yadav, who alleged that he invested Rs. 1,86,000/- in a firm named Mrs. GOWAYINDIA (under KDM Enterprises), a proprietorship firm registered under the GST Act. The firm promised a monthly return of Rs. 10,150/- for 12 months on an investment of Rs. 62,000/-. However, the firm failed to honor its commitment, and the proprietor, Anil Sain, became untraceable. Meenu Sain, along with Anil Sain and Kunal Sain (her son), were named as accused in the FIR. The applicant claims innocence and false implication, highlighting her status as a lady and the delay in the police report submission. The prosecution opposes the bail, citing the applicant's involvement in the alleged cheating and her criminal history.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Meenu Sain, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given her alleged involvement in offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC? Arguments for the Applicant (Meenu Sain): - The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. - As a lady, she is entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. - The investment was made with the Firm, which has not been impleaded as an accused. - The criminal proceedings are not maintainable, relying on the Apex Court judgment in *Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane* (2015) 12 SCC 781. - Despite over a year since the FIR, no police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, and custodial arrest is not necessary for the investigation. - The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and has explained her criminal antecedents. Arguments for the Opposite Party (State of U.P.): - The applicant is a named accused and is guilty of offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. - The applicant's bonafide is doubtful as she is unwilling to deposit the disputed amount. - The applicant has a criminal history of 12 cases, all under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, disentitling her to indulgence.