Arti Keshri vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The applicant, Arti Keshri, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0154 of 2024, registered at Police Station Nanak Matta, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sections 420, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with a co-accused, induced the complainant to pay Rs. 11,58,000/- for arranging an overseas job, which was never provided. When the complainant demanded a refund, he was allegedly abused, threatened, and assaulted, with his mobile phone snatched. The applicant's counsel argued that she is a director of Vows Education Services Private Limited, a company involved in visa-related services for study abroad, and that the complainant's visa was rejected due to his own document discrepancies. It was also contended that the entire amount had been returned and that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of forgery or cheating under Section 420 IPC. The State opposed the bail application, asserting that there was cogent evidence against the applicant for defrauding the complainant.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Arti Keshri, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court acknowledged that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is a precious fundamental right, which can only be curtailed when imperative. In the given facts and circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. The reasoning appears to be based on the applicant's submissions regarding her company's legitimate business, the complainant's visa rejection due to his own fault, the alleged refund of the amount, and the perceived lack of clear ingredients for the offences charged in the FIR. The Court did not delve deeply into the merits of the allegations but considered the balance between personal liberty and the need for investigation. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where personal liberty is at stake and the applicant presents a plausible defence or raises significant questions about the evidence, anticipatory bail may be granted, subject to stringent conditions. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two sureties in the like amount, with conditions to attend the trial court regularly, not to induce or threaten witnesses, and not to leave the country without prior permission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation under Sections 420, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that she was falsely implicated and that her company, Vows Education Services Private Limited, is duly incorporated and GST registered. She contended that the complainant's visa was rejected due to his own document issues and that the entire amount had been refunded, negating any surviving liability. Furthermore, it was argued that the FIR lacked the essential ingredients for offences under Section 420 IPC, specifically forgery or the use of forged documents for cheating. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the anticipatory bail application, submitting that the applicant, in collusion with a co-accused, had defrauded the complainant and that reliable evidence existed against her.