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

Held

The Court considered the arguments from both sides. 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 clearly stated her inability to accept this suggestion. After hearing both parties and perusing the record, the Court found no good ground to allow the application for anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court noted the applicant's complicity, the allegations of offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, and the applicant's unwillingness to deposit the disputed amount, despite having a criminal history. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Facts

The applicant, Meenu, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 00544 of 2019, registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code at P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The FIR was lodged by Satya Prakash, alleging that a firm, Mrs. GOWAYINDIA (KDM Enterprises), which is registered under the GST Act, failed to return invested amounts. The firm's proprietor, Anil Sain (applicant's husband), is also an accused. Satya Prakash invested Rs. 4,34,000/-, and another investor, Harbirr Singh, invested Rs. 6,20,000/-. The firm allegedly promised returns on investment but failed to do so, and its registered office was found closed, with the proprietor untraceable. The applicant claimed innocence, being a lady, and argued that the FIR was not maintainable and the investigation was unduly prolonged without a charge sheet.

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 an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. - She is a lady and therefore 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, citing the Supreme Court judgment in *Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane*. - More than a year has passed since the FIR was lodged, and no charge sheet has been filed, indicating the investigation is prolonged and custodial arrest is not necessary. - The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue's Arguments: - 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 not ready to deposit the disputed amount. - The applicant has a criminal history of 12 cases, all under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, disentitling her to the court's indulgence.