The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional anticipatory bail to company employee Beena Rai in the FIR lodged against the builders for not handing over possession of flats after collecting the price from buyers of the multi-storey building being constructed in Manduadih police station area of Varanasi.
A single-judge bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Beena Rai.
The application has been moved on behalf of Beena Rai seeking anticipatory bail in Case under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Manduadih, District Varanasi.
It is alleged in the FIR that one registered developers agreement dated 31.5.2014 took place between the builders’ co-accused Beena Rai and Avinash Upadhyay on the one hand and the owners of the land and the accused applicant on the other hand and under the aforesaid agreement, the construction of multi-storey building started. Some persons including the informant entered into an agreement with the builders for the purchase of some flats in the aforesaid multi-storey building.
It is further alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, a huge amount was paid to the builders by both informants.
It is alleged that the builders and the owners, who is the accused applicant before the court, are in collusion with each other and the possession of the flats has not been delivered to the informant.
It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter.
It is submitted by the council for the applicant that he is simply the owner of the land and this is the liability of the builder to receive money from the investors and also to give possession of the constructed flats to them. The owners have nothing to do with that. No money has been transferred in favour of the applicant by the informants of the case.
It is also submitted that the investigation into the matter is going on.
It is further submitted that earlier the accused applicant was an employee in the builder company where she resigned on 21.12.2020 and since then she had nothing to do with the Pratakshya Infra Developers Private Ltd.
Counsel for the applicant said that although process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-bailable warrant has been issued against the accused applicant but as a matter of fact the said process was issued against her by the address of district Varanasi whereas since 2019 she is residing at Sector-6, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow and she had absolutely no knowledge about the FIR of this case or any of the process issued by the Court against her. She is a house wife and in the compelling circumstances she had approached the Court for anticipatory bail. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
A.G.A opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that a process under Section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued against the accused applicant and anticipatory bail application as such is not maintainable.
“Considering the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and also taking into account that the punitive process was issued against the applicant by the court concerned during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application before the Court, in my view, an exceptional case exists in favour of the applicant for consideration of application for anticipatory bail moved by her. Hence the application is well maintainable before the Court as a rare and exceptional case in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, decided on 29.8.2023.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C before the competent Court,” the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered,
In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
(ii) 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has a passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P/S.P Concerned.