Smt. Rasmi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 299 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶11

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested. He further submits that applicant was the Director of the company only for two months. It is also submitted that applicant is wife of another Director Anand Kumar Gupta who has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.2.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.7429 of 2024. It is further submitted that another Director Chhote Lal Nishad has also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.3.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.7943 of 2024. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate 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

¶12

NABAIL No. 5085 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

would obey all conditions of bail.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submits that applicant was the Director of the company at the time of commission of offence.

¶16

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

¶17

As per the FIR, the allegation is that the company got various persons to deposit amounts in various schemes through agents but the amounts so deposited were not repaid on maturity. The applicant remained Director only for two months whereas two other Directors have already been enlarged on regular bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant Smt. Rasmi 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 :-

¶22

(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

¶23

NABAIL No. 5085 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

Court concerned;

¶26

(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;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶31

October 9, 2025

¶32

Madhurima

¶33

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

Smt. Rasmi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rasmi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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