Allowed

Santosh Kumar Dubey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2025NABAIL/8733/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants, parents-in-law of a deceased employee's widow, sought anticipatory bail for allegedly fraudulently withdrawing his provident fund. Noting ongoing investigation, cooperation and parity with a co-accused already granted bail, the court granted anticipatory bail till police report filing.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till filing of police report under Section 193(3) BNSS, on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties, subject to stated conditions.

Santosh Kumar Dubey and Another vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8733 of 2025

¶3

Santosh Kumar Dubey And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite

¶8

Party(s)

¶9

Counsel for Applicant(s):Noor Muhammad, Yogesh Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):G.A.

¶10

Court No. - 71

¶11

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

¶13

2. The present application has been moved by the
applicants - Santosh Kumar Dubey and Smt. Meena
Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.
281 of 2025 under Sections 85, 318 (4), 316 (2),
115 (2), 351 (2), 352, 69, 61 (2) of B.N.S., Police
Station Tundla, District Firozabad.

¶14

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the
applicants that the applicants are father-in-law
and mother -in-law of the victim. He further
submits that first informant has developed a new
story in her statements recorded under sections 180
and 183 BNSS. The allegation in the FIR is that
husband of the first informant was son of the
applicants and he died while employed in a private
company and the applicants along with other co-
accused persons fraudulently withdrawn his

¶15

provident fund amount. He further submitted that
applicants have been falsely implicated in this
case only to pressurize them to perform marriage of
his younger with the first informant. It is also

¶16

NABAIL No. 8733 of 2025

¶17

¶18

submitted that applicants have no criminal history
to their credit. It is also submitted that
applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and
they would appear as and when required by the
investigating agency or Court and in case they are
granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse
the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions
of bail. It is also submitted that the lady
victims' husband had left two small children and
the applicants invested a considerable amount of
money through investment in insurance police after
the death of their son.

¶19

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶20

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

¶21

6. It appears that investigation in the matter is
going on and the applicants are cooperating with
the I.O. Co-accused Tej Prakash Dubey @ Chhotu has
been granted anticipatory bail on 29.10.2025 by the
coordinate Bench of this Court vide Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8704 of 2025.

¶22

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT
of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held 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,

¶23

NABAIL No. 8733 of 2025

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty
is an important aspect of our constitutional
mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during
investigation arises when custodial investigation
becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where
there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses
or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest
can be made because it is lawful does not mandate
that arrest must be made. A distinction must be
made between the existence of the power to arrest
and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest
is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to
the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the
Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that
the accused will abscond or disobey summons and
has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the
investigation, then there is no compulsion on the
officer to arrest the accused.

¶27

9. Considering the settled principles of law
regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation,
role of applicants 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
applicants till filing of police report under
Section 193(3) of BNSS before the Competent Court.

¶28

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶29

11. In the event of arrest of the applicants, she
shall be released on anticipatory bail on her
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two

¶30

NABAIL No. 8733 of 2025

¶31

¶32

sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police
station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available
for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required.

¶34

(ii) The applicants 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.

¶35

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without
the previous permission of the Court and if they
have passport, the same shall be deposited by them
before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶36

12. In case of default of any of the conditions,
the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to
file appropriate application for cancellation of
protection granted to the applicants.

¶37

November 19, 2025
safi

¶38

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Kumar Dubey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Dubey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Jubair vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nikhat Parveen vs State of U.P. and Another

Anita Dwivedi @ Anita Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Vandana Alias Vandana Rani Pundir vs State of U.P. and Another

Prof Dr Anurag Hasti vs State of U.P. and Another