Reetu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32049

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 547 of 2025 Applicant :- Reetu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Nath Tripathi,Amit Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

1.Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1-State while power on behalf of informant has been filed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate which is taken on record.

¶6

First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.14 of 2025, under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 351(3) BNS, P.S. PGI, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow).

¶7

As per contents of first information report, allegation levelled is that the informant and her husband sought to purchase an immoveable property from one Sunil Kumar Shukla but even after payment of advance amount, it transpired that the said property was mortgaged with one FASCOS Financial Service Private Limited which was owned by one Ravi Singh and the applicant Reetu Singh. Allegation levelled is that despite payment being made by the informant for paying off the said mortgage, he came to know that the alleged original documents of the property were in fact fabricated.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against her only on account of the fact that she is a director in the said Company and entire gist of allegations have in fact been levelled against main accused Sunil Kumar Shukla and Ravi Singh. It is submitted that a bare perusal of FIR will indicate that there is no aspect of forgery attributed to the applicant. It is submitted that investigation is still ongoing in which applicant undertakes to cooperate.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for informant have opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that the applicant is a Director in the Company was clearly associated and connived with the coaccused in fabrication of the sale-deed and cheating of informant. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and investigation is still ongoing.

¶10

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that primary gist of allegations have been levelled against main accused Sunil Kumar Shukla and Ravi Singh with only role attributed to applicant at this stage of being a Director in the Company. Investigation is still ongoing with regard to complicity of applicant. Applicant does not have any previous criminal history and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS.

¶11

List this case on 09.07.2025, as fresh.

¶12

Objections to be filed in the meantime.

¶13

In view of above, interim anticipatory bail is granted to applicant providing that in the event of arrest, applicant Reetu Singh shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶15

(ii) That the accused-applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of

¶16

the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; and

¶17

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶18

(iv) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶19

Order Date : - 28.5.2025 Subodh/-

¶20

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

Reetu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reetu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

Dherendra Pandit K.C, vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Lal Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Omprakash Sharma @ Omprakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Nishtha Singh @ Niti @ Nishtha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anuruddha @ Vimal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Sukhraj vs Union of India Thru. N.C.B. Zonal Unit Lko.