ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.17 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10687/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-04-2023 in CRMABA No. 6979/2022 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

AJAY SHARMA PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)

Date : 06-02-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Munisha Anand, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Vamsikrishna Thota, Adv.
Mr. Adhayan Gyupta, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Varad Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR
Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in connection with the Crime No. 1111 of 2021 registered with the Vrindavan Police Station, District Mathura, for the offence punishable under Sections 379,420,467,468,471 and 120-B of the IPC.

2. Prima-facie , it appears that the FIR is a result of the matrimonial dispute between husband and wife. The First Information Report came to be lodged by the wife and the husband has been arrayed as an accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the
petitioner herein somehow was able to procure a cheque from the cheque book of the account maintained by the wife and is alleged to have forged the signature of his wife and drew a cheque of the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs in his own favour. It is not in dispute that ultimately the cheque alleged to have been forged by the husband
came to be cleared by the bank and the amount of Rs.15 Lakh came to be credited in his own account, transferred from the account of his wife. The Branch Manager of the Bank has also been arrayed as accused no. 2 in the FIR.

3. The above is the crux of the case of prosecution.

4. It appears that notice came to be issued and interim protection was also granted to the petitioner which has continued till this date.

5. In the course of the hearing of this matter, we asked the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to take instructions whether her client is ready and willing to pay back this amount of Rs.15 Lakhs to his wife.

6. We also made it clear that, prima facie , we are not inclined to exercise our discretion for grant of anticipatory bail. However, if the husband is ready and willing to return this amount of Rs.15 Lakhs to his wife, we may be persuaded to order his release on
anticipatory bail.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner upon instructions from her client makes a statement that the petitioner is ready and willing to return the amount of Rs.15 Lakh within a period of one week from today. However, the problem is that in the course of the investigation, the police has asked the bank to freeze the account.

8. We direct the Investigating Officer to instruct the concerned bank to permit the petitioner to operate the account only for the purpose of transferring the amount of Rs.15 Lakh to the account of his wife.

9. On the next date of hearing, the learned counsel shall make a statement whether the amount has been credited into the account of the wife or not.

10. Learned counsel for the State shall also obtain necessary instructions and make a statement in this regard.

11. List this matter on 20.02.2024.

(VARSHA MENDIRATTA) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)No. 10687/2023

AJAY SHARMA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
J. [J.B.PARDIWALA]
J. [SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
06TH FEBRUARY, 2024