NUTAN THAKURversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 2007 of 2026

Nutan Thakur
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                        :   Vineet Vikram
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                   :   G.A.

Court No. - 72
                 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

     1. Heard Shri Imran Ulla Siddiqui, learned Senior Advocate
     assisted by Shri Vineet Vikram, learned counsel for the
     applicant, Shri Paaritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I for
     the State and perused the records.

     2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory
     bail in Case Crime No. 1021 of 2025, U/s 419, 420, 467, 468,
     471, 120B IPC P.S. Kotwali, District-Deoria, with the prayer
     that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

     3. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the
     applicant that the incident relates to the year 1999 and the first
     information report has been lodged in the year 2025 i.e. after
     26 years. It is further submitted that as per allegation, the
     applicant was allotted a plot in the year 1999, in which, her
     name has been mentioned as 'Nutan Devi' in place of her actual
     name 'Nutan Thakur'. It is further submitted that the husband of
     the applicant was posted as S.P., Deoria at that relevant point
     of time and now, he has retired. It is further submitted that
     name of her husband was shown as 'Ajitabh Thakur' in place of
     'Amitabh Thakur' however, her permanent address has been
     mentioned of Village Khaira, Sitamadhi, State of Bihar which
     is correct. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate
     that the said property has been mentioned in the ITR submitted
                                                 NABAIL No. 2007 of 2026
                          2


in the year 2001 by her husband which is annexed with the
memo of application at page 81. It is also submitted by the
learned Senior Advocate that the first informant is inimical
towards the husband of the applicant as he has been filing
complaints after complaints against him since 2021 and the
present case has been lodged only with ulterior motive.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the
application for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the
applicant was allotted an industrial plot, in which, forged name
has been entered in the revenue records and the applicant has
deliberately concealed her actual name and that too of her
husband and she has mentioned her name in the allotment-deed
as 'Nutan Devi' and her husband as 'Ajitabh Thakur' in place of
'Nutan Thakur' and 'Amitabh Thakur' respectively. It is further
submitted that even the address has been mentioned as village
Khaira, Sitamadhi, State of Bihar. It is further submitted that
two years after the alleged allotment, the applicant has
transferred the said plot in favour of one Sanjay Pratap Singh,
in which, she has mentioned her name as 'Nutan Thakur' and
that of her husband 'Amitabh Thakur'. It is further submitted
that applicant has paid fraud in obtaining the allotment of the
said plot. It is further submitted that applicant has obtained the
allotment of the said plot under the influence of her husband
who was posted as S.P., Deoria at that relevant point of time.

5. In reply to the same, learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant submit that till date, no suit for cancellation or
rectification has been filed by the subsequent transferry- Sanjay
Pratap Singh and the said registered document is still in
existence since 2001.

6. The first information report has been lodged after a delay of
26 years, for which no cogent reason has been provided by the
first informant. The first informant has no concern with the
said plot. As per the FIR, the applicant allegedly obtained
allotment of an industrial plot by showing her name as Nutan
                                                   NABAIL No. 2007 of 2026
                          3


Devi instead of 'Nutan Thakur', and her husband's name as
Ajitabh Thakur instead of 'Amitabh Thakur'. However, the
address given is village Khaira, Sitamadhi, Bihar. However, it's
not found that any village named Khaira does not exist in State
of Bihar. Moreover, the applicant's husband, a retired IPS
officer, has shown the property in his ITR and property
statement filed in 2001, copy of which is annexed with the
memo of this application.

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- Nutan Thakur
 involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on
anticipatory bail on 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
                                                                                           NABAIL No. 2007 of 2026
                                                                     4


                                           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.



                                                                                     (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Rama Kant




Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad