Allahabad High Court

SUSHMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The bail application is allowed.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Sushma, who is accused in a 2021 case involving offences under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 and the Banning Act sections 3‑6. The applicant claimed innocence, argued that the FIR was lodged after a one‑year delay, and highlighted that co‑accused had already been granted bail while she had a record of 42 cases with bail previously granted in 13. The State opposed bail, contending that the applicant participated in a large‑scale fraud that cheated many investors. After reviewing the facts, the court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found the case suitable for bail and ordered release on a personal bond with strict conditions to prevent tampering or intimidation of witnesses. The order expressly limited its effect to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita despite serious fraud‑related charges and a substantial criminal history.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the alleged scale‑economy fraud justify denial of bail.
Whether imposing conditions on the applicant can sufficiently mitigate the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.

Legislation cited

Banning Act — s. 3, 4, 5, 6
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506

Subjects

bail
criminal law
fraud
Indian Penal Code
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Banning Act
trial pendency
criminal history

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14312 of 2026

Sushma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shanti Dhar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Shanti Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and
perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of
applicants with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.
282 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 IPC
and Section 3/4/5/6 Banning Act, registered at Police Station
Bahadurgarh, District Hapur, during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this
case and she has been languishing in jail since 30.10.2021. It is
further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of 42
cases and she has been granted bail in 13 cases and all the cases
have been lodged within a month by shareholders of the company
individually, therefore, criminal history of the applicant has gone
up. It is further submitted that the applicant is said to be the wife of
the co-accused Dharampal who is said to be the Director of the
company and as per FIR the said company is said to have induced
the first informant and several other persons to make investment in
the company in order to get their amount doubled in 18 months,
however, the principal amount and maturity amount has not been
BAIL No. 14312 of 2026
2

returned to the first informant and other investors. It is further
submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of one year
and some of the co-accused persons Mukesh Kumar, Dinesh,
Sudesh@Tilllu and Chandrakiran have already been granted bail
by different Benches of this Court. It is also submitted that the
applicant undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of
cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for
grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that the applicant
has indulged in scale economy fraud and thereby large numbers of
persons have been cheated.

5. FIR has been lodged after a delay of one year and some of the
co-accused persons Mukesh Kumar, Dinesh, Sudesh@Tilllu and
Chandrakiran have already been granted bail by different Benches
of this Court. The applicant is said to be the wife of the co-accused
Dharampal who is said to be the Director of the company and as
per FIR the said company is said to have induced the first
informant and several other persons to make investment in the
company in order to get their amount doubled in 18 months,
however, the principal amount and maturity amount has not been
returned to the first informant and other investors. The applicant is
having criminal history of 42 cases and she has been granted bail
in 13 cases and all the cases have been lodged within a month by
shareholders of the company individually.

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence
reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits
of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail
application is ALLOWED.

7. Let the applicant- Sushma involved in the aforesaid case crime
shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the
BAIL No. 14312 of 2026
3

satisfaction of the Court concerned :-

(i) 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.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial
court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of
charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of
B.N.S.S.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she
shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each
date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the
purpose of determination of this bail application and will, in no way,
be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial
court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent
conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything
said in this order.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
May 6, 2026
Abhishek

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…