Aditi Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Court considered that the applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. It also took into account the undertaking by the applicant to cooperate with the investigation and the fact that, as per the prosecution's case, no overt act has been attributed to her. The Court found it expedient in the interest of justice to protect the applicant's liberty until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., citing the Sushila Aggarwal case. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond with two sureties and adhere to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, not influencing witnesses, remaining present for interrogation, and not leaving India without prior court permission. The Court expressly left undecided any issues related to the merits of the case or the final outcome of the investigation.

Facts

The applicant, Aditi Singh, is seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 326 of 2022, registered under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleges that an amount of Rs. 4.797 lacs was irregularly paid to the applicant's firm, M/s Saroj Enterprises, on November 20, 2022, by the Gram Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Officer/Secretary of Gram Panchayat Mahona Paschim. The applicant is the sole proprietor of the firm, which is registered with the GST Council. She was awarded a contract to supply construction materials like brick and sand and claims to have supplied the materials as per orders, receiving payment through online transactions. She asserts she is not an officer, employee, or contractor involved in the construction work and has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is ongoing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of irregular payment and potential offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC? Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant argued that she is a lady with no criminal antecedents. Her firm is duly registered with the GST Council, and she supplied materials as per contract, receiving payment through online transactions. She is not involved in the construction work itself and will cooperate with the investigation. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's dictum in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - 2020 SCC online SC 98. Revenue/State: The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer, stating that the investigation is still ongoing.