Allowed¶33

Smt. Babli v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2025NABAIL/7199/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail — Section 482 BNSS — grant till end of trial — charge sheet filed, no custodial interrogation required — earlier interim anticipatory bail till police report under Section 173(2) CrPC not misused — Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 — Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 — Sections 323, 326, 120-B IPC — 75/80 Juvenile Justice Act — Section 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 — case crime no. 718 of 2022, P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad — personal bond Rs.50,000/- with two sureties — NABAIL No. 7199 of 2025 — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad — Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J. — decided November 10, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial; in the event of arrest, release on a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of court attendance and cooperation in trial, no inducement/threat/promise, and no leaving India without previous permission (passport to be deposited before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned); default of conditions may be a ground for cancellation of the protection.

1. It reveals from the perusal of the record that charge sheet against the present applicant was filed for the offence under Sections 323, 326, 120-B IPC, 15/18 Juvenile Justice Act and 3/5(1) Uttar Pradesh Prohibit ion of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 but vide order dated 11.3.2025 the trial court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 326, 120-B IPC, 75/80 Juvenile Justice Act and 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition o f Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and in the same offence present anticipatory bail application has been moved.

2. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Smt. Babli in case crime no. 718 of 2022, under Sections 323, 326, 120-B IPC, 75/80 Juvenile Justice Act and 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared absconder. It is further

submitted that earlier the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 16.9.2022 till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC and the said protection has not been misused by her and she has been cooperative to the I.O. during investigationIn case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

6. Earlier, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 16.9.2022 till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC and the said protection has not been misused by her and she has been cooperative to the I.O. during investigation. Now charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. Statement of the present applicant has already been recorded by the I.O. and now there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant in the matter.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses,

likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

12. So far as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non- bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because

9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, 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:-

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

Smt. Babli v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Babli v. State of U.P. 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

Smt. Akta and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Hela vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Satvir vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Moolchandra vs State of Up