Tania Sanyal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 372 of 2026

Tania Sanyal	Versus		.....Applicant(s)
Central Bureau Of Investigation			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Ashish Pandey, Pandey	Nikil	Pathak, Pragya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	Rahul Srivastava

¶4

Court No. - 73

¶5

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶6

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Tania Sanyal in FIR No.RC2182021A0006, under Sections 109 of I.P.C., Sections 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Section 13(2) R/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act, 1988, Police Station AC-III, Delhi, District -Delhi.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that during investigation the applicant was not arrested and the applicant has cooperated with the investigating agency. Subsequently, charge sheet has been filed on 29.11.2024. The summoning order has been issued to the applicant on 25.8.2025. Since the applicant was not arrested during investigation and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SSC Online SC 116, the law down by this Court in Smt. Bacchi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2025:AHC:136034 , the applicant is also entitled to the same protection as has been given in the aforesaid judgment. The order passed by the Supreme Court in Musheer Alam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra) is quoted hereunder:-

¶8

"1. The petitioner herein has been denied anticipatory bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in connection with case Crime No.320/2020, which has now with the filing of the charge sheet culminated in Sessions Case No. 941/2024 for the offence punishable

¶9

NABAIL No. 372 of 2026

¶10

2

¶11

under Sections 13(1) (e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act, 1988").

¶12

2. It appears from the materials on record that a First Information Report came to be lodged at the Kotwali Police Station, district Barabanki for the offence enumerated above. It is the case of the prosecution that the check period between 2002 and 31-5-2009 revealed that the petitioner herein had assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs.1,50,41,908/- to the known sources of his income.

¶13

3. In such circumstances, the Anti Corruption Department, Ayodhya, Faizabad, U.P. decided to proceed against the petitioner.

¶14

4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Akshat Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶15

5. We take notice of the fact that the investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed in the CBI Court at Gorakhpur.

¶16

6. While the investigation was in progress, the Investigating Officer did not deem fit to arrest the petitioner herein.

¶17

7. The CBI Court has taken cognizance and has issued summons to the petitioner herein to appear.

¶18

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense.

¶19

9. We are of the view that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶20

10. If at all, the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course of the investigation itself. Now there is no point in making a formal arrest.

¶21

NABAIL No. 372 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

11. In such circumstances, referred to above, we order that the petitioner herein shall appear before the CBI Court, Gorakhpur and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶24

12. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

¶25

13. Pending application(s), if any, stands dispose of."

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the apprehension raised by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 17.1.2025 that after filing of the charge sheet the accused are being arrested and protection was granted by the Supreme Court. The applicant is also entitled for the same protection. In the present case the disproportionate asset as per the first information report is to the tune of Rs.5 crores. The applicant has explained criminal history in paragraph 21, 22 and 23 of the affidavit accompanying this application, in which the applicant has already been enlarged on bail.

¶27

Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that the applicant was not arrested during investigation and has co-operated in the investigation. Therefore, there was no requirement of arrest of the applicant. He has not disputed the law laid down by Supreme Court in Musheer Alam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra) .

¶28

It is to be seen that once the investigation is over and the applicant has co-operated in the investigation, there is no foundation before this Court to find that the applicant will not co-operate with the trial court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra) has already issued direction for granting bail to the accused person. In terms of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the law laid down by Supreme Court is required to be followed in letter and spirit.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, once the investigation is over and the charge sheet has been submitted, then the applicant is required to appear before the court concerned and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. Therefore, it is directed that the applicant shall appear before the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today and furnish bail to the

¶30

NABAIL No. 372 of 2026

¶31

4

¶32

satisfaction of the court concerned. The court concerned shall be obliged under law to accept the bail bonds of the applicant in terms of the order of Supreme Court.

¶33

Subject to the aforesaid observation/direction, the application stands disposed of.

¶34

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶35

May 6, 2026

¶36

Bhaskar

¶37

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tania Sanyal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tania Sanyal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

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

Mohd. Shifat @ Sifat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs Murari Lal and 2 Others

Smt Nil Kamal Vs Ashok Kumar

Satyam Sahu vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar vs Murari Lal and 2 Others

Vaibhav Dhama vs State of U.P. and Another