Allahabad High Court
SARITA ALIAS GUDDAL ALIAS GUDDI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad entertained an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC filed by Sarita alias Guddal alias Guddi Devi, who was implicated in a case under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The applicant argued that she was not named in the FIR and her name only appeared in the victim's statement, asserting her innocence and lack of prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the alleged immoral traffic offence. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court examined the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents, and the risk of flight or evidence tampering. Finding no sufficient ground to deny bail, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and specific conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and prohibition on leaving India without permission.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving alleged offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history and the manner in which her name surfaced in the victim’s statement justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — s. 3, 4, 5, 6
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
- bail conditions
- flight risk
- evidence tampering
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2028 of 2026
Sarita Alias Guddal Alias Guddi Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Yadav, Santosh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Akash Misha, learned Advocate brief of Mr. Santosh Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. 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. 465 of 2025, under Sections 3/4/5/6 of Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956, Police Station Teelamod, District Ghaziabad, with
the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant
is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further
submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and his name was
surfaced in the statement of victim, who was apprehended in the raid
conducted by the police. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to
co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the
investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is
granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-
operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail.
5. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement of the victim who
has been apprehended by the police from a premises. It is alleged that an
illegal immoral sex trade was being carried out. It is also submitted that the
NABAIL No. 2028 of 2026
2
applicant is having no criminal history.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Sarita Alias Guddal Alias Guddi
Devi 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 he 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.
10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to
NABAIL No. 2028 of 2026
3
file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to
the applicant.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 18, 2026
Virendra
Digitally signed by :-
VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…