HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7777 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Shikhar Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 550 of 2023 under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabd with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant under sections 420 and 406 IPC and both the offences cannot stand together in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Delhi Race Club (1940)Ltd and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another', 2024 4 ACR 610. It is further submitted that the matter relates to some civil dispute and chargesheet has already been submitted in the case and during investigation, the applicant was served notice under section 35 (3) BNSS. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and she would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case the 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shikhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rohit Sharan Tomar Sangeeta Tyagi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that transaction was done in the account of the applicant and she even transferred some amount in the account of co-accused Gandharv Chaudhary. It is submitted that first informant has suffered huge financial loss to the tune of Rs. 45,00,000/-. He further submits that the applicant is having criminal history of similar cases. 5. Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that transaction of money has taken place in the account of the applicant. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. As per the FIR, an agreement was entered into between the charmers and a builder with the first informant regarding purchase of a flat. It is further alleged that one Gandharv Chaudhary, a broker, induced the first informant to transfer Rs. 27.22268/- through cheque and RTGS out of which, Rs. 16,72,000/- was credited in the account of the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant also transferred some money from her account to the account of Gandharv Chaudhary. Chargesheet has already been filed in the present case. 8. 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, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration. 9. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, 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. NABAIL No. 7777 of 2025 2 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicant Sangeeta Tyagi involved in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her 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 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. 12. 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 13, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 7777 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad