Manju Dubey Alias Manju Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4297 of 2025

Manju Dubey Alias Manju Upadhyaya

			.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anupama Tripathi	Tripathi,	Rakesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

Case taken up on mention.

¶7

Heard Sri R.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 547 of 2019, under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120-B of IPC, Police Station- Kotwali City, District-Bijnor with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶9

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was the Additional Director of the company at the relevant point of time and the main role has been assigned to co-accused Ajay Kumar Dubey and Smt. Indu Dubey who are already enlarged on anticipatory bail vide orders dated 02.5.2025 and 07.7.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 2725 of 2025 and 7357 of 2025 respectively. It is also submitted that the role assigned to the applicant is much lesser than that of the aforesaid co-accused persons. It is also submitted that applicant has no criminal history to her credit. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and she would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and

¶10

NABAIL No. 4297 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

would obey all conditions of bail.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that applicant is having direct complicity in the offence in question.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The applicant is said to be the Additional Director of the company at the relevant point of time. The directors of the said company Ajay Kumar Dubey and Smt. Indu Dubey have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide orders dated 02.5.2025 and 07.7.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 2725 of 2025 and 7357 of 2025 respectively. Applicant has no criminal history to her credit.

¶16

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶17

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant Manju Dubey Alias Manju Upadhyaya involved in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that she would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court

¶21

NABAIL No. 4297 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

concerned;

¶24

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶25

(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶27

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶28

October 14, 2025

¶29

Madhurima

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manju Dubey Alias Manju Upadhyaya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Dubey Alias Manju Upadhyaya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases