The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional anticipatory bail to Pushpa Srivastava, Principal of an industrial and technical institution known as Silai Kadhai and Bunai Prashikshan and Utpadan Kendra, Daraganj, Prayagraj.
A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Smt Pushpa Srivastava.
The anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C) has been moved seeking bail in Case under Section 408 IPC, Police Station Daraganj, District Prayagraj.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case just to harass the applicant. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against her in the impugned FIR. The applicant is a lady aged about 57 years and suffering from several old diseases. The applicant is Principal of an industrial and technical institution known as Silai Kadhai and Bunai Prashikshan and Utpadan Kendra, Daraganj, Prayagraj and has discharged her duty since 1997 without any obstruction and complaint.
The said institution is managed by private management under the headship of Manager, Pankaj Pandey after receiving grant from the State Government as the State Government decided to take the institution in the grandin-aid list on 29.12.2017 and since then all the staff of the institution are receiving salary from the Government Exchequer but due to management dispute with malafide intention, the services of the applicant has been terminated on 03.12.2021.
Being aggrieved, the applicant approached the Court by filing Writ Petition, which was allowed vide order dated 31.05.2022 by a detailed order while quashing the termination order and directing the authorities to reinstate the applicant on the post of Instructor forthwith. In pursuance of the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by writ Court, the applicant has joined her services on 16.06.2022 but the salary has not been given, hence, the applicant was no option but to file contempt application before the Court in which the Court has issued notices and the charges have also been framed.
After issuing notices, the Management has lodged as many as two FIRs against the applicant. One is a present case and another Case. In both cases, initially the final reports were submitted after proper investigation, but the Manager, having malafide intentions, further approached the Inspector General of Police Prayagraj Zone, who ordered for further investigation on 31.05.2022. Thereafter, both matters were further investigated and in one case a final report was submitted on 04.05.2022 whereas in the second case charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other school staff, hence, the anticipatory bail application.
Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is Principal of the institution and she has been implicated in this case only in order to insult the applicant in the society. The Manager, who lodged the FIR, did not permit the applicant to discharge her duty as Principal and also not paying the salary since 14.08.2021. The applicant is having no previous criminal antecedent.
He also submitted that the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the trial.
A.G.A as well as counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and have prayed for rejection by submitting that no final report has been submitted in the matter. The allegation is serious and in view of seriousness of the allegation, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
The Court noted that,
So far as submission of the counsel for the informant regarding final report is concerned, counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards of the affidavit filed in support of application wherein it is clearly mentioned that during investigation, the investigating officer has not found any cogent and credible material against the applicant, hence, submitted final report vide final report dated 04.05.2022.
The writ Court while quashing the termination order has held that termination order has been passed relying on such documents, which was not served upon the applicant and also on the ex-parte inquiry report submitted by three members Committee. The writ Court has also held that the applicant has worked from 1997 till passing the impugned order without there being any complaint against the applicant, who has been made to suffer only when she has raised her voice against the Management.
“Perusal of record as well as order passed by writ court clearly shows that the Management not only harassed the applicant but also deliberately again and again implicating the applicant and also not paying the salary in spite of the order passed by writ court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant-Smt Pushpa Srivastava, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC.
If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.