Poonam @ Poonam Kapoor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin.Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1387 of 2025

¶3

Poonam @ Poonam Kapoor

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin.Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Digvijay Singh, Achleshwar Raj, Avinash Singh Vishen, Aviral Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 15

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶11

As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R has been registered by Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, Food Inspector, against the applicant, who appears to be the fair price shop dealer. In the inspection, it was found that there was shortfall of the food grains. It is alleged that about 37 quintal of wheat and about 40 quintal of rice was missing and a suspicion regarding black marketing has been raised.

¶12

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that initially the F.I.R was registered under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thereafter, a writ petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7029 of 2025 was filed by the applicant, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.08.2025, granting protection to the applicant. Just to nullify the order of the writ court, the Investigating Officer, without any new material, added Section 409 I.P.C.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant has fully co-ordinated in the investigation, the specific pleading regarding the same has been made in paragraph-11 of the affidavit filed along with the bail application.

¶14

Learned A.G.A has opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant has criminal history, but from the case diary, he could not show that after the order dated 06.08.2025, passed by the Division Bench of this court, any new material was collected during the investigation to add Section 409

¶15

NABAIL No. 1387 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

I.P.C.

¶18

Considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 06.08.2025; the fact that the applicant has criminal history of four cases which has been explained by her in paragraph-16 of the affidavit filed along with the bail application, and in view of the undertaking given on her behalf to cooperate with the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , subject to her cooperation in the trial.

¶19

In view of the above, the accused-applicant Poonam @ Poonam Kapoor involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 85/2025, Under Sections- 3/7 Esssential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 316(5) B.N.S, Police Station- Laharpur, District- Sitapur is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of twenty days from today. Upon her surrender, the trial court shall release her on anticipatory bail, subject to her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence;

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court;

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness;

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance;

¶24

(v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant;

¶25

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶26

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶27

NABAIL No. 1387 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶30

October 13, 2025 DiVYa

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Poonam @ Poonam Kapoor v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin.Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam @ Poonam Kapoor v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin.Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anurag Nagar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 3 Others

Ramendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co. Operative Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Nankau Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Ajay Kumar Mishra @ Atul Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Bunty Mandal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko