Tanuja Joshi Alias Tanuja Punetha vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.251 of 2021, registered at police station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3of the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2005.

Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate, contended that the applicant Smt. Tanuja Joshi alias Tanuja Punetha, aged about 32 years, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. She had not received any money from anyone. She is a permanent resident of District Pithoragarh, therefore, there is no likelihood of her absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate, contended that applicant was not given notice before being arrested. Applicant has been arrested in complete violation of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another. Applicant has been arrested in violation of Section 41 and Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence she is entitled to bail, and co-accused Smt. Madhuri Gahlaut has been granted bail by this Court.

Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder, opposed the bail application orally. However, he has fairly conceded that the notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, “Code”) was not served on the applicant.

Section 41 and Section 41A of the Code are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Investigating Agencies and their Officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and Section 41A of the Code. Admittedly, notice under Section 41A of the Code was not given to the applicant

In Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any arrest made in violation of Section 41 and Section 41A of the Code would entitle the accused to bail. The directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court have to be complied with or without any exception or justification.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

Let the applicant -Smt. Tanuja Joshi alias Tanuja Punetha be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and she shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon her, prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.