HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1052 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Avishesh Kumar Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.0871 of 2019, under Sections 60(2) of Excise Act and 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Nanpara, District Bahraich. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by an Excise Inspector against three persons including the applicant stating that a team of officials of Excise Department and some police personnel raided a place on the basis of information received from a mukhbir and found that the accused persons were involved in manufacturing illicit liquor. One of the accused persons Anup Kumar Jaiswal was arrested on the spot and he stated that the applicant had escaped. The F.I.R. states that some illicit liquor and other objectionable articles were recovered from the place which belongs to the applicant. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent, she has no criminal history and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has further been stated that although it is alleged that the raid was conducted at 11.00 a.m. on 04.10.2019 and the F.I.R. was lodged at 18.20 Hrs. on 04.10.2019 even prior thereto a press conference was called for disclosure of the raid at 11.30 a.m. on 04.10.2019, which shows that entire story narrated in the F.I.R. is false and stage managed. 5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinita Gupta .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) sheet has been submitted on 24.03.2020. 6. A co-accused Durgesh Kumar Gupta has already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case by means of an order dated 19.09.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1059 of 2025. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. does not mention the place where the raid was conducted; a press conference regarding the raid was called even before the raid was conducted and even before lodging of F.I.R. which raises a serious doubt against the prosecution case; coupled with the fact that the applicant is a woman, she has no criminal history; the investigation stands concluded and the applicant was not arrested during investigation and a co- accused person has already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Vinita Gupta before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on bail on her furnishing a 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 herself 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; (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 22, 2025 -Amit K- ABAIL No. 1052 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench