HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1374 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagarjuna Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.820/2024, under Sections- 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station- Dewa, District- Barabanki. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 01.12.2024 with the averment that the complainant had made investment in companies of Time City Group but no return was paid on the investment. The applicant has been implicated in the present case because she was working as General Manager in the aforesaid company. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, she has been falsely implicated in the present case. Involvement of applicant has been found in 10 other cases, in 5 out of 10 cases, she has been granted anticipatory bail and in 3 cases, her arrest has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court. Description of the criminal history of the applicant has been given in paragraph 24 of the affidavit filed in support of present application. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nadeem Murtaza, Pallav Shukla, Snigdha Singh, Wali Nawaz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Reena Shukla .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. A co-accused- Deep Chandra Shukla @ Deepchand Shukla has already been granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 08.09.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No.1180/2025. 6. The learned AGA has raised preliminary objection that the applicant has approached this Court directly without approaching the Sessions Court. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the anticipatory bail application of co-accused- Deep Chandra Shukla @ Deepchand Shukla was rejected by the Sessions Court and he has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court, therefore, the applicants have directly approached this Court. 8. Rejection of the anticipatory bail of an accused person, against whom several allegations have been leveled, makes out a sufficient ground for another co-accused person to approach the High Court directly with the prayer of seeking anticipatory bail. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the allegation against the applicant is regarding non payment of money invested in a company; the complainant has not initiated any proceeding for recovery of returns; the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicants- Reena Shukla before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of 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; NABAIL No. 1374 of 2025 2 (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 her 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 25, 2025 V. Sinha NABAIL No. 1374 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench