Bharti Singh Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118841

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3446 of 2025

Applicant :- Bharti Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Singh,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally, disposed off.

¶7

Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 56-B of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 218, 120-B, 34 IPC & Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Rasda, District Ballia, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Zila Panchayat Adhyaksh and an FIR was lodged in the year 2006 with the allegation that nominated accused persons, misappropriated the public money but applicant was not named in the FIR and after 17 years in the year 2023 she has been made accused and when applicant came to know about this fact then she approached this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 19050 of 2023 but on 19.12.2023, writ petition filed by the applicant has been withdrawn.

¶10

He further submitted that however, writ petition filed by the applicant was withdrawn on 19.12.2023 and instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in April, 2025 but applicant was not an absconder nor she was either evading her arrest or investigation. He further submitted that as at that time Investigating Officer was not trying to arrest the applicant, therefore, after withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the applicant, she did not file any anticipatory bail application as for anticipatory bail application apprehension of arrest is the condition precedent but when Investigating Officer started harassing the applicant and started making attempt to arrest her then she filed the anticipatory bail application before the court concerned.

¶11

He further submitted that even till date no coercive action has been taken against the applicant.

¶12

He further submitted that after 19 years there is no occasion to send the applicant in jail who is lady and aged about 60 years. He further submitted that applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should be

¶13

released on anticipatory bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the case.

¶16

However, as per allegation, applicant being Zila Panchayat Adhyaksh misappropriated the public fund alongwith other accused but it appears FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and she was not named in the FIR and after 17 years in the year 2023 Investigating Officer made her accused and surprisingly till date, investigation with regard to the applicant is still pending.

¶17

Further, however, it reflects that when applicant came to know that she has been made accused in the present matter then she challanged the FIR of the present case before this Court in criminal writ jurisdiction but in the month of December, 2023, she withdrew the petition and thereafter she filed anticipatory bail application.

¶18

However, applicant could file the anticipatory bail application immediately after withdrawal of her writ petition but as per averment made in para-16 of the affidavit filed in support to the instant anticipatory bail application, at that point of time, police was not trying to arrest her, therefore, she did not file anticipatory bail application and this averment cannot be brushed aside. Further, considering the fact that investigation of the case is still pending, the apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶19

Further, applicant is lady and this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after 19 years it would not appropriate to send her jail.

¶20

Further, till date it appears no coercive measures have been taken against the applicant.

¶21

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in this case, till conclusion of trial.

¶22

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶23

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Bharti Singh , involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶24

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶25

ii. that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶26

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶27

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶28

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶29

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶31

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

¶32

Order Date :- 22.7.2025

¶33

Ankita

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bharti Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharti Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases