Sushma Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14312 of 2026

¶3

Sushma

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shanti Dhar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 69

¶7

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Shanti Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶9

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicants with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 282 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3/4/5/6 Banning Act, registered at Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur, during pendency of the trial.

¶10

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case and she has been languishing in jail since 30.10.2021. It is further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of 42 cases and she has been granted bail in 13 cases and all the cases have been lodged within a month by shareholders of the company individually, therefore, criminal history of the applicant has gone up. It is further submitted that the applicant is said to be the wife of the co-accused Dharampal who is said to be the Director of the company and as per FIR the said company is said to have induced the first informant and several other persons to make investment in the company in order to get their amount doubled in 18 months, however, the principal amount and maturity amount has not been

¶11

BAIL No. 14312 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

returned to the first informant and other investors. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of one year and some of the co-accused persons Mukesh Kumar, Dinesh, Sudesh@Tilllu and Chandrakiran have already been granted bail by different Benches of this Court. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶14

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that the applicant has indulged in scale economy fraud and thereby large numbers of persons have been cheated.

¶15

5. FIR has been lodged after a delay of one year and some of the co-accused persons Mukesh Kumar, Dinesh, Sudesh@Tilllu and Chandrakiran have already been granted bail by different Benches of this Court. The applicant is said to be the wife of the co-accused Dharampal who is said to be the Director of the company and as per FIR the said company is said to have induced the first informant and several other persons to make investment in the company in order to get their amount doubled in 18 months, however, the principal amount and maturity amount has not been returned to the first informant and other investors. The applicant is having criminal history of 42 cases and she has been granted bail in 13 cases and all the cases have been lodged within a month by shareholders of the company individually.

¶16

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED .

¶17

7. Let the applicant- Sushma involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶18

BAIL No. 14312 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

satisfaction of the Court concerned :-

¶21

(i) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.

¶26

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶27

9 . It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will, in no way, be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

May 6, 2026 Abhishek

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Vs State of U.P.

Monish Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Gihar Vs State of U..P.

Rohit @ Keera Vs State of U.P.

Samshul vs State of U.P.