Indu Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17422

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2694 of 2024

Applicant :- Indu Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party.

¶7

Second Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.384 of 2017 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, P.S. Alambagh, District Lucknow.

¶8

It is submitted that First Anticipatory bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1775 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn while granting liberty to applicant to move regular bail application vide order dated 07.08.2024 which was corrected vide order dated 09.09.2024 substituting the word regular bail by the words anticipatory bail application. It is in these terms, the present second anticipatory bail application has been filed.

¶9

As per contents of first information report, the applicant has been shown involved as Director of the Firm, namely, Peers Allied Corporation and has allegedly induced persons to invest in the Corporation without any approval by the RBI under the Act concerned.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the charges levelled against her and that although she was inducted as a Director in the Company along with her husband Mr Durga Prasad Dubey, there is no allegation that the applicant in fact had accepted any of the deposit personally or that any of the deposits made were not returned. It is also submitted that in fact the FIR clearly indicates the aspect of return of deposits made in the Company. It is submitted that the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail in the connected Case Crime No.196 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C.

¶11

No.2854 of 2022 as well as in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.7062 of 2024 pertaining to Case Crime No.261 of 2021, under Sections 406, and 420 IPC.

¶12

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed Anticipatory Bail Application with submission that the applicant clearly and admittedly is a Director of the Company which did not have any authorization from the RBI to act as non banking financial corporation but despite the said fact, investment has been permitted. It is however, submitted that the previous criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, perusal of material available on record, it appears that the applicant's involvement has been indicated due to her being a Director in the Company which allegedly received investments from general public without any authorization to do so by the Reserve Bank of India. The previous criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶14

Thus, having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Nathu Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021 , protection from arrest for limited period of time i.e. till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., may be granted in favour of the applicant.

¶15

In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Indu Dubey is finally disposed of with a direction that till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the event of arrest of applicant in the abovementioned case, she shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

(1) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(2) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country without the

¶19

previous permission of the Court.

¶20

In case of default of any condition the investigating officer may approach this Court for cancellation/modification of this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.3.2025 Renu/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indu Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indu Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Vishal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Lko.

Arvind Yadav Urf Fauji Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Indu Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Hafijurrehman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Jaikeerat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.