Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2017 DIGILAW 60 (SC)

Daljit Kaur Gorwara v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-01-09

A.K.SIKRI, R.K.AGRAWAL

body2017
ORDER : Leave granted. 2. The brief facts involved in the instant appeal are that a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 2-Company against the appellant and her family members alleging that they were using forged documents, fake stamp seals, fake letter heads, fraudulent fictitious bank accounts, impersonating themselves as other companies to embezzle and cheat money from it. Pursuant to this, an FIR was registered against the appellant and her family members under Section 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The appellant herein filed the bail application and the Trial Court, vide order dated 19.12.2014, allowed the same on the ground that there is no chance of the appellant herein absconding since her passport has been seized by the police and that the appellant, who allegedly acted in the capacity of a Director, being a woman and having sufficient roots in the society and willing to abide by the conditions imposed by 1 Criminal Appeal No. 52/2017 the Court, she is no more required for effective investigation under the police remand. 4. Aggrieved, respondent No. 2 preferred a petition being Cr.MMO No. 38 of 2015 for cancellation of bail under section 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh against the order of the Trial Court. The appellant also filed a petition numbered as Cr.MMO No. 132 of 2015 for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the FIR lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 against her wherein the High Court vide order dated 19.05.2015 granted stay of further proceedings. 5. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 20.07.2016 allowed the petition for cancellation of bail and quashed the order of the Trial Court principally on the ground that the Trial Court afforded the appellant with the facility of bail merely on the ground of her being a woman. Aggrieved the appellant has filed the instant matter. We have heard the matter finally. 6. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that the High Court had allowed the petition of respondent No. 2 herein and accordingly, the order of the Trial Court granting bail to the appellant was quashed on the ground that the Trial Court was influenced while granting bail to the appellant as she was a women. 7. 6. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that the High Court had allowed the petition of respondent No. 2 herein and accordingly, the order of the Trial Court granting bail to the appellant was quashed on the ground that the Trial Court was influenced while granting bail to the appellant as she was a women. 7. On a perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, we find that it is not factually correct. The Trial Court considered all relevant aspects of the matter on merits, in addition to the provisions of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In totality of circumstances as discussed by the Trial Court, we find that the appellant was entitled to be released on bail. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the bail order granted by the Trial Court. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.