Allahabad High Court

TANUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 20 April 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant subject to conditions.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered the bail application of Tanu, accused in case crime No. 471 of 2025 under sections 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 318(4) of the BNS. The Sessions Judge had denied bail and she had been in custody since 23 January 2026. The applicant contended that she was not named in the FIR, was only mentioned in a co‑accused’s statement, and that the main accused forged documents using her identity; no incriminating material was recovered and she has no criminal antecedents. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. After reviewing the police’s compliance affidavit and noting the prima‑facie case yet the lack of direct evidence against her, the Court held that bail was appropriate subject to conditions to prevent tampering, intimidation and ensure regular appearance. Accordingly, bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted despite the seriousness of the offences and the existence of a prima facie case
Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses
Whether the absence of the applicant's name in the FIR and lack of material against her warrant bail

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

bail
false implication
forgery
prima facie case
tampering with evidence
witness intimidation
sections 338,336(3),340(2),318(4)

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8641 of 2026

Tanu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jigyasa Singh, Navin Kumar, Raj
Kishore Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Raj Kishore Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D. P.
S. Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

The instant bail application on behalf of the applicant Tanu seeks
enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 471 of 2025, under Sections 338,
336(3), 340(2), 318(4) of BNS, Police Station Kakar, District
Bulandshahar, during the pendency of the trial before the court below.
The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected
by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, vide order dated 09.02.2026 and the
applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 23.01.2026.

Learned counsel for the applicant before addressing the court on merits of
the case has invited the attention if this Court to the orders dated
13.03.2026 and 13.04.2026 of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The
order dated 13.03.2026 required the learned AGA to obtain instructions
regarding status of investigation as well as the material against the
applicant collected during the investigation. The order dated 13.04.2026
in the absence of the requisite information called for required the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar to appear before the Court and
explain his conduct for not complying with the order of the Court dated
13.03.2026 despite receiving information on 18.03.2026 through e-Mail
from the office of the Government Advocate.

Pursuant to the order dated 13.04.2026, a personal affidavit of Sri Dinesh
BAIL No. 8641 of 2026
2

Kumar Singh the present Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar
has been filed in compliance thereof which is taken on record. Sri Dinesh
Kumar Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar is also
present in Court and his presence is duly acknowledged by the Court.

The Court has gone through the personal affidavit of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar and is satisfied by the explanation
offered for not being in a position to comply with the directions contained
in the order dated 13.03.2036. The unconditional apology tendered is
accepted and the personal presence of the Officer on future dates is
exempted.

Learned AGA has filed compliance affidavit which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is
innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case crime number.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is not
named in the FIR and her name surfaced in the statement of co-accused. He
submits that one of the accused Pawan Bhati in his statement has stated that
the applicant was an employee in the Office of Vivek Sharma. He submits
that Pawan Bhati and Vivek Sharma prepared a forged document in the
name of Tanu as Tanu Enterprises to register a forged firm. He submits that
Pawan Bhati and Vivek Sharma are the main accused of the alleged forgery
and the applicant has no connection in the aforesaid crime. He submits that
no amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant as such she
is not the beneficiary of the aforesaid crime. He submits that no
incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the
applicant. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. He
submits that the applicant is a student of B.A. IIIrd Year and she was an
employee in the Office of Vivek Sharma and was working as Compute
Operator. He submits that Vivek Sharma misused her Aadhar Card and other
documents to register a forged document. He submits that no specific role
has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
23.01.2026. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to her
credit He submits that there is no likelihood of her fleeing from course of
justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, the bail
has been prayed for.
BAIL No. 8641 of 2026
3

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail, but could not
dispute the above submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations,
severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima-
facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made
out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Tanu, involved in above mentioned case crime
number be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless her personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel her bail.

April 21, 2026
pks

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…