Sanjay Singhal vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Sri Arnav Dwivedi and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Uma Shankar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 4 of 2026, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.s. Ganganagar, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶11

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Poonam and Arjit Gupta have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 2090 of 2026 and 1772 of 2026, respectively. It is further submitted that other co-accused persons, namely, Sharad Singhal and Sanjeev Goel have also been granted interim anticipatory bail in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1738 of 2026 and 1788 of 2026, respectively. It is further submitted that the applicant has resigned from the directorship of the company in the year 2013 and the incident relates to the period thereafter. The 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 co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

NABAIL No. 2525 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that he has not received instructions as yet.

¶15

Co-accused Poonam and Arjit Gupta have been granted anticipatory bail other co-accused persons, namely, Sharad Singhal and Sanjeev Goel have been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court. The applicant has resigned from the directorship of the company in the year 2013 and the incident occurred in 2017.

¶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, the 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

Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant- Sanjay Singhal involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned till 8.4.2026 with the following conditions :-

¶18

(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;

¶19

(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;

¶20

(iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of interim anticipatory bail bail.

¶21

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

¶22

NABAIL No. 2525 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant herein.

¶25

List this case as fresh on 8.4.2026 in top 20 cases.

¶26

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. may obtain instructions.

¶27

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

March 17, 2026

¶29

Vandana

¶30

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Singhal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Singhal v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Anar Singh vs State of U.P.

Nehal Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Ram Babu and Another vs State of U.P.

Narendra vs State of U.P.

Manju vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj vs State of U.P. and Another