Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1728
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Alok Kumar Verma, J
Smt. Premwati Kaushik – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 587 of 2025 | Case Crime No. 59 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Lalit Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Pratiroop Pandey
Anticipatory bail can be granted with conditions to prevent misuse, ensuring the accused cooperates with an ongoing investigation.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 - Anticipatory bail application - The applicant, aged 78, was accused of fraudulently executed power of attorney and subsequent sale deeds by a co-accused, despite cancellation of the power of attorney - The court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed conditions for bail, emphasizing the importance of cooperation with the investigation. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Terminology - Granting of anticipatory bail is a safeguard against unwarranted arrest, subject to certain conditions that must be adhered to, failing which bail may be revoked. (Paras 6, 7)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of anticipatory bail application and summary of the case facts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's preliminary hearing observations. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments of the applicant regarding false implication. (Para 4) |
| 4. conditions imposed for the bail granted. (Para 6 , 7) |
Hon’ble Alok Kum ar Verm a,J.
This Application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2025, registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun under Sections 120B , 420, 467, 468 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.
2. As per the First Information Report dated 10.04.2025, the co-accused Manoj Kumar fraudulently executed a registered sale-deed in favour of Harpal Malik.
3. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A.
for the respondent.
4. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, contended that the applicant, aged about 78 years, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The co-accused Manoj Kumar obtained power of attorney dated 22.09.2014 from the applicant by concealing the actual facts. When the applicant came to know about the alleged power of attorney, she executed a registered Cancellation Deed dated 16.05.2015. Manoj Kumar, the co-accused, was aware that the power of attorney dated 22.09.2014 had been cancelled. Inspite of the cancellation deed, the co- accused Manoj Kumar malafidely executed sale deeds. The applicant filed an Original Suit (No.244 of 2014) against the co-accused Manoj Kumar and others for cancellation of the sale deeds and for perpetual injunction. The said suit is pending before the civil court. The applicant was granted interim bail on 04.06.2025 and the conditions of interim bail have not been violated by her.
5. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A., has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed and order dated 04.06.2025, granting interim bail to the applicant, is made absolute. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Smt. Premwati Kaushik, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and she shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) If the charge-sheet is filed, the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and she shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;
(iii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;
(iv) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.
7. It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon her, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
