HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1151 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Rakesh Chandra Tewari, Advocate, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, is taken on record. 2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record. 3. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 0108 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) B.N.S, registered at Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow. By means of a supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that Sections 351(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 612(a) B.N.S have been added against the applicant during investigation. 4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 28.05.2025 against the applicant, her husband and her two sons, stating that the informant's husband Sudhir Kumar Mishra was an old acquaintance of the applicant's husband- co-accused Ram Narain Trivedi. The informant had entered into an agreement with the applicant for running a petrol pump business, in which the informant was made to invest Rs. 54 Lakhs exceeding her share and, thereafter, when she demanded an account for the same, no account was rendered to her. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Romit Seth Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Chandra Tewari Smt. Sunaina .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a 62 years old women having no criminal history and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. 6. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the investigation of the matter is still going on. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that applicant is the main accused in the present case and she has committed the offence of cheating against the complainant. He further alleged that the applicant had forged some documents. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R substantially alleges that the complainant were in a partnership business; the complainant has invested Rs. 54 Lakhs in the partnership business exceeding her share but the applicant has not rendered account to her which dispute is essentially of a civil nature and that the applicant is 62 years old women having no criminal history, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Smt. Sunaina before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; NABAIL No. 1151 of 2025 2 (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. September 4, 2025 Preeti. NABAIL No. 1151 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench