SNEH SENGAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.