Kusum Devi vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court found substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court reasoned that the applicant's submissions regarding the delay in FIR lodging, the suspension of her GSTIN number and her subsequent application for revocation, and the grant of anticipatory bail to similarly situated co-accused were persuasive. The Court directed the applicant to surrender before the trial court if a charge-sheet was filed and she was summoned. Upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, she was to be released on bail, subject to several conditions aimed at ensuring her cooperation with the trial and preventing misuse of liberty. These conditions included filing an undertaking not to seek adjournments, remaining present in court, cooperating with the investigation, and facing proceedings for misuse of bail or failure to appear as per law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Kusum Devi, proprietor of Bajrang Trading Company, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving the Poisons Act, 1919, and Section 420 IPC. The FIR alleged the incident occurred on October 2, 2021, with the FIR lodged ten days later. The applicant's company supplied industrial solvent, and the police allegedly found nine drums of methyl alcohol in a vehicle. The applicant's GSTIN number was suspended on the date of the alleged incident, which she claimed was not within her knowledge. She filed an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation shortly after gaining knowledge. The applicant also pointed out that similarly situated co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Case Crime No.495 of 2021, under Section 2/6 Poisons Act, 1919 and Section 420 IPC, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh. Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant has been falsely implicated to harass her. - There is a delay in lodging the FIR without a plausible explanation. - The applicant's GSTIN number was suspended on the date of the alleged incident, and she promptly applied for revocation upon learning of the cancellation. - Similarly placed co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. - The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail due to the seriousness of the allegations. - The applicant's apprehension of arrest is not based on material on record and is merely an imaginary fear.