Kanchan Rastogi @ Kanchan Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1859 of 2025

¶3

Kanchan Rastogi @ Kanchan Soni

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinay Kumar Verma, Neetesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Akhilesh Kumar

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to Case Crime No.00151 of 2025, under Section - 108 of BNS, Police Station - Mahanagar, District - Lucknow.

¶11

Vide order dated 28.11.2025, this Court had protected the interest of the applicant. The order dated 28.11.2025, referred, reads as under : -

¶12

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶13

2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR/Case Crime No.151 of 2025 under section 108 BNS, P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

¶14

3. It is argued that the co-accused was enlarged on interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.11.2025.

¶15

4. Considering and adopting the same reasoning, the applicant is also entitled for the same benefit.

¶16

5. Thus, in the event of arrest, the applicant Kanchan Rastogi @ Kanchan Soni be released on interim anticipatory bail till the next date of listing in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR in question, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of Station

¶17

NABAIL No. 1859 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

House Officer concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

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

¶21

(ii) That the accused-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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and

¶22

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

¶23

6. Issue notice.

¶24

7. Steps be taken to serve the opposite party no.2 within two weeks.

¶25

8. List along with the Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 482 BNSS No.1829 of 2025."

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the prosecution could not demonstrate from the record that there is any adversarial facts which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the prosecution also could not point out any fact based upon which it can be inferred that the applicant has not cooperated with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant - Kanchan Rastogi @ Kanchan Soni till disposal of the trial, subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶29

(ii) that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶30

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶31

NABAIL No. 1859 of 2025

¶32

3

¶33

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶34

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶35

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶36

February 20, 2026 ML/-

¶37

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kanchan Rastogi @ Kanchan Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Rastogi @ Kanchan Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shobhit @ Monu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dhanesh vs Sri Vikash Shiromani Executive Engineer Sarju Nahar Shravasti

Shivam Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gayatri Jaiswal vs Sri Brijesh Kumar Nayab Tehsildar Sarve Tehsil Sadar Distt. Ayodhya

Sanchit Madan vs Mayank Agarwal