RAMWATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Viresh Misra, senior advocate assisted by Shri Amit Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Damodar Mishra & Shri Shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant and Shri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

(2.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an old lady aged about 55 years and is suffering from several diseases. She is innocent and has not committed any offence. No active role has been described anywhere in the evidence collected by the investigating officer in this matter nor the applicant has collected any amount from anyone. Main role of committing the present offence is against the co-accused Sumit Awasthi. Applicant has been falsely roped in this matter only on the basis of a joint account maintained in the name of co-accused Sumit Awasthi and present applicant regarding the partnership in the Firm. It was further submitted that if the prosecution story is taken into consideration as a whole then also offence levelled against the applicant are not attracted against her. It was further submitted that the applicant never met with the informant nor with any other person connected with the present matter. Co-accused Sumit Awasthi is the person behind the Firm said to have been started in the name and style of the Firm run by the informant. Applicant was not aware of the business activities / transactions carried on by the co-accused Sumit Awasthi. The informant, on the basis of false facts, has lodged many cases of similar nature on the same set of facts against the applicant and she has been enlarged in one of the cases by this Court. Present prosecution has also been initiated on the basis of same set of facts, hence applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in this matter. It was next argued that transactions said to have been made through the joint account could not be connected with the present matter as the applicant has never received any cheque or amount from anyone nor has taken any active part in collection of the money. It was next contended that the amount in question are not in crores, but it is only about Rs.40 lacs. A compromise said to have been arrived at between Sumit Awasthi and the informant was also obtained due to coercion. It was further submitted that merely on the basis that the applicant is the partner in the Firm, she cannot be held liable at this stage for the criminal acts of a co-partner. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.8.2015 and in case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.