Sarita Alias Guddal Alias Guddi Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2028 of 2026

¶3

Sarita Alias Guddal Alias Guddi Devi

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Alok Yadav, Santosh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 72

¶7

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Akash Misha, learned Advocate brief of Mr. Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 465 of 2025, under Sections 3/4/5/6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Police Station Teelamod, District Ghaziabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and his name was surfaced in the statement of victim, who was apprehended in the raid conducted by the police. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶12

The name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement of the victim who has been apprehended by the police from a premises. It is alleged that an illegal immoral sex trade was being carried out. It is also submitted that the

¶13

NABAIL No. 2028 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

applicant is having no criminal history.

¶16

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.

¶17

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Sarita Alias Guddal Alias Guddi Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on 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 he 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