HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4323 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. The case is taken up on mentioning. 2. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri J.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.261 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant was Additional Director at the relevant point of time and she has resigned from the said Company. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Rohit Kumar Upadhyaya and Ajay Kumar Pandey have already been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 18.06.2025 and 23.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 4437 of 2025 and 4866 of 2025. It is also submitted that other co-accused, namely, Durga Prasad Dubey, Vishambar Nath Dubey and Shri Amit Kumar Mishra have already been granted regular bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 20.11.2023, 14.06.2024 and 29.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49171 of 2023, 20341 of 2024 and 27739 of 2024. It is further submitted that the investigation is still under progress Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anupama Tripathi, Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Manju Dubey @ Manju Upadhyaya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) against the applicants. It was also submitted that 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, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co- operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and she does not dispute the fact that the other co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. 6. Applicant was Additional Director at the relevant point of time and she has resigned from the said Company. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Rohit Kumar Upadhyaya and Ajay Kumar Pandey have already been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and other co-accused, namely, Durga Prasad Dubey, Vishambar Nath Dubey and Shri Amit Kumar Mishra have already been granted regular bail by Co- ordinate Benches of this Court. 7. 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, 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. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Manju Dubey @ Manju Upadhyaya involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on 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, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that she would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court NABAIL No. 4323 of 2025 2 concerned; (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; (iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. October 15, 2025 RKM NABAIL No. 4323 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad