D.N.Jha - (1.) THIS is an application for bail moved on behalf of Sneh Sengar detained in connection with crime under sections 467/468 IPC read with section 12 of the Passport Act. The bail application is resisted on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh and a counter affidavit has been filed making out certain allegations of conspiracy between the applicant Sneh Sengar and renowned accused Charles Shobh Raj who is wanted in several cases. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed repudiating certain allegations and adding certain information with respect to the status of the applicant just to show that she cannot abscond from India.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the averments and cross averments made by the parties in their respective affidavits. It transpires that the applicant is involved in a case registered at Police Station Janakpuri purporting to be under sections 221, 222, 223, 224, 328 read with sections 34 and 120-B IPC. Apart from this case she is also involved in a case under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. It may be mentioned that in both these cases she had been admitted to bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that petitioner was a practising advocate and she was connected with Charles Shobh Raj being his counsel. Be that as it may, in my opinion nothing substantial turns on that question. The main charge in the instant case purports to be a forged passport being recovered from the Lalitpur residence of the applicant. There cannot be two opinions that on the face of it the passport recovered cannot be said to be genuine. The recovery of this forged document is also not in controversy before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently urged that at the most the case if taken on the face value would be covered under section 474 IPC which is bailable offence On the other hand learned counsel for the State strenuously urged that passport being a valuable security as per definition provided under Passport Act coupled with previous history, it can lead only to one conclusion that is, the applicant had all intentions to use the forged passport in order to escape from this country. He also urged that the case was clearly covered within the definition of section 467/468 IPC. In view of the fact that the case is under investigation and much evidence has yet to be collected, it would not be fair to record any finding with respect to actual offence in order to avoid any prejudice being caused to either of the parties, I deliberately refrain from making any further observation on this aspect of the argument canvassed strenuously by the learned counsel for the parties. The question primarily before this Court is whether there is any likelihood of the applicant abusing the liberty of bail, if at all extended in the instant case. It may be observed that in the conspiracy case she has been admitted to bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi. Even in case registered under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act she has been granted bail. It also transpires that she was admitted to anticipatory bail from the Delhi High Court. It is alleged in the application that she is a practising advocate at Delhi and this fact has not been repudiated on behalf of the State as such I am of the view, that she is entitled to be admitted to bail. In order to ensure that the liberty granted to her is not abused I direct that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur will admit her to bail on her furnishing two solvent sureties each to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (twenty live thousand) and a personal bond in the like amount to his satisfaction. She states that she intends to go back to Delhi and resume her practice. She will inform the Chief Judicial Magistrate Lalitpur with respect to her intention to leave for Delhi and she will report within forty eight hours to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi about her arrival, I direct that she will leave Lalitpur only after obtaining permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur after informing her movement to him. I further direct that she will continue to report to the Chief Police Commissioner, Delhi in the last week of every month and with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the last week of every third month It is also ordered that she will make herself available to all the investigating Officers if and when required for purpose of interrogation. At the time of interrogation she can exercise her right to be represented through a counsel.
(3.) IT is, however, clarified that if the applicant violates any of the terms and conditions of this order it would be open to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi or Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur to take the applicant into custody without any reference being made to this Court. Copy of this order will be simultaneously issued to the learned counsels for the applicant and for the State.;