Benefit Of First Proviso To Section 437(1) CrPC Can’t Be Given To Women Who Are Powerful & Offence Is Affecting Public At Large: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court observed that the benefit of first proviso to Section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be given to women who are powerful and the offence is such which is affecting the public at large.

The Court observed thus in criminal miscellaneous bail applications arising out of three FIRs (First Information Reports).

A Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held, “Insofar as the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that the cases where the accused are females, they are entitled to be released on bail giving benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., the court is of the opinion that the benefit can be given to women who do not have agency and not who themselves are powerful or connected with such powerful persons and the offence is such which is affecting the public at large.”

Senior Advocate Anoop Trivedi appeared for the applicants while Senior Advocate Manish Goel, AGA-I Amit Singh Chauhan, AGA Nitesh Srivastava and Advocate Mayank Awasthi appeared for the opposite parties.

Brief Facts -

Three FIRs were registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). As per the prosecution case, the informant was a journalist and worked as an Editor of the Lallantop internet news portal and India Today Hindi Magazine. He came across two GST registrations obtained in the States of Punjab and Maharashtra. These were applied on informant’s PAN bearing his name as legal name of the business entity. The registered address was not obtained with the informant’s consensus and he was totally unaware of the person who applied for these registrations and whose contact details were updated in the same.

It was also mentioned that the two registrations were already authenticated for Aadhaar verification whereas as on date no email ID and mobile number was linked with his Aadhaar. Further, it was learnt that similar registration was applied in the UT of Delhi, however, the same got rejected by the GST (Goods and Services Tax) authorities. Hence, the FIR was lodged.

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “In the case of Tahir Hussain v. The Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate21, the Court has observed that the accused Tahir Hussain was involved in the acts of cheating/ falsification/ forgery of documents which resulted in fraudulent removal of money from the accounts of the three companies (M/s SEAPL, ECPL and EGSPL). On the directions and instructions of Tahir Hussain, huge amount of money was withdrawn from the accounts of the said three companies by way of transfer of funds to entry operators and bogus companies. Tahir Hussain was ultimate beneficiary of the laundered money which he used for fulfilment of ulterior motives. Fake and bogus invoices were created to cover the money trail.”

The Court added that the same situation is there in the facts of this case where the crime has started with registration of fake GST firms by using Aadhaar and PAN Card of the informant which amounts to forgery, therefore, offence under the relevant sections is made out and these offences have been properly investigated by the Investigating Officer after lodging of FIRs.

“While considering an appeal against the bail cancellation order, the Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)22, has held that there cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail”, it further said.

The Court also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) in which it was held that precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have bearing on principle and the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the bail applications.

Cause Title- Kanika Dhingra v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:142289)

Appearance:

Applicants: Senior Advocate Anoop Trivedi and Advocate Nafees Ahmad.

Opposite Parties: Senior Advocate Manish Goel, AGA-I Amit Singh Chauhan, AGA Nitesh Srivastava, Additional Chief Standing Counsel Rishi Kumar, and Advocate Mayank Awasthi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment