Allahabad High Court
VANDANA JOSHIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail during the trial as there is no sufficient ground to deny it.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vandana Joshi, who was arrested in a case (Crime No. 245 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Joshi claimed she was falsely implicated, worked as an agent for Senemi Consulting Pvt. Ltd., and had no personal financial gain from the alleged crimes. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges, while Joshi's counsel highlighted her lack of a specific role, her clean criminal record, and the fact that the main accused had already been granted bail. The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the risk of evidence tampering, and the heavy pendency of cases in the courts. Concluding that there was no sufficient ground to deny bail and without expressing any view on the merits, the Court allowed the bail application subject to standard conditions and sureties. Joshi was ordered to be released on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions to prevent tampering, intimidation of witnesses, and further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused during the pendency of trial for offences under Sections 318, 336, 338 and 340 of the IPC.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
- Whether the applicant's alleged involvement and the seriousness of the charges justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- sureties
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30605 of 2026
Vandana Joshi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Sandeep
Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on
record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 245 of 2025, under Sections- 318(4),
336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS, Police Station- Civil Lines, District-
Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the subject case. It is submitted that the
applicant is working in Senemi Consulting Pvt. Ltd. company on the post
of agent in salary basis. It is submitted that the work and conduct of the
applicant is only convinced the customers, neither she has received single
amount in his personal bank account or cash. It is submitted that the main
accused Amit Gautam, who is Managing Director, has already granted
bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.5.2026
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43785 of 2025. It is next
submitted that applicant is having no concern with the allegations levelled
against her and she has not committed any offence as alleged by
prosecution. It is next submitted that no specific role has been assigned to
the applicant. Criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in
BAIL No. 30605 of 2026
2
para 20 of the bail application and she is languishing in jail since
02.06.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that she will
not misuse the liberty, if granted on the ground of parity. 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.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record
and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Vandana Joshi be released on bail in the aforesaid case
on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
following conditions:-
(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.
(v). 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.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the
sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
BAIL No. 30605 of 2026
3
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at
liberty to cancel the bail.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
September 9, 2026
Brijesh
Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…