Smt Rumali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2026NABAIL/1149/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, anticipatory bail, Section 482 BNSS, interim anticipatory bail, Smt Rumali v. State of U.P., Case Crime No. 211 of 2025, Sections 305(a) and 317(2) BNS, P.S. Barhan Agra, notice under Section 35(3) BNSS pasted on house, personal bond Rs. 50,000/-, two sureties, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (2011) 1 SCC 694, bail conditions, cancellation on default, listed 25.03.2026, Jitendra Kumar Sinha J., February 12, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail till 25.03.2026 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions; case listed fresh on 25.03.2026 at 02:00 P.M. and learned AGA directed to obtain updated instructions by the next date. ¶¶25

Smt Rumali vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Smt Rumali is entitled to anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 211 of 2025 under Sections 305(a), 317(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Barhan, District Agra. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till 25.03.2026 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Interim anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, appearance before trial court, no inducement/threat/promise, cooperation during trial, no misuse of liberty, no leaving India without prior permission); in default, the prosecution is at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Application under Section 482 BNSS by Smt Rumali in Case Crime No. 211 of 2025 under Sections 305(a), 317(2) B.N.S., P.S. Barhan, District Agra, where her name surfaced in the confessional statement of a co-accused and a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was pasted on her house. Relying on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Court granted interim anticipatory bail till 25.03.2026 on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of non-tampering, appearance before the trial court, no inducement or threat, cooperation during trial, non-misuse of liberty and no departure from India without prior permission; on default, prosecution free to seek cancellation. Case listed fresh on 25.03.2026; AGA to obtain updated instructions.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1149 of 2026

Smt Rumali

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Himanshu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 72

¶10

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.211 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 317(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Barhan, District Agra, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶13

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged against two named persons and the name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused during investigation. It is further submitted that the applicant has not been served a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS rather the same has been pasted on her house and the police has been extending threat to arrest the applicant. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and she would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted by him that the applicant is having no apprehension of arrest and a notice under under Section 35(3) BNSS has been pasted on her house.

¶15

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that pasting of notice under Section 35(3) BNSS does not absolutely rule out the apprehension of arrest as the police officer may arrest her by assigning false reason.

¶16

NABAIL No. 1149 of 2026

¶17

¶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, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Smt. Rumali involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till 25.03.2026 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 :-

¶20

(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 Court concerned;

¶21

(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;

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

List this case on 25.03.2026 as fresh at 02:00 P.M.

¶26

Learned AGA is directed to obtain updated instructions in the matter by the next date.

¶27

February 12, 2026 RKM

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Rumali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rumali 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheeraj Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Pal vs State of U.P.

Vaseem vs State of U.P.

Rahul vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.