Allahabad High Court

SANDHYA @ PINKYversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant until the conclusion of the trial, subject to a personal bond and specified conditions.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Sandhya (Pinky), sister of a co-accused, in a criminal case (Crime No. 233 of 2025) involving alleged offences under IPC sections 108, 316(2) and 352. The applicant argued that the allegations were false, she posed no flight risk, and would cooperate with the trial, while the State opposed the bail. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) that anticipatory bail may be granted for the duration of the trial and subject to conditions, the court examined the nature of the offence, the applicant’s role, and the risk of tampering with evidence. The court concluded that the case was suitable for anticipatory bail and ordered its grant until the trial concludes, subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and specific conditions. The order also stipulated that violation of any condition could lead to cancellation of the bail protection.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted for the entire duration of the trial in the present case
Whether the nature of the alleged offences and the applicant's role justify the grant of anticipatory bail
Whether the court should impose conditions on anticipatory bail to prevent interference with investigation or witnesses

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Indian Penal Code — s. 108, 316(2), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
Section 438
false implication
witness tampering
bail conditions
judicial discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 3562 of 2026

Sandhya @ Pinky
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Chandra Solanki
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Alok Dixit,
G.A.

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.233 of 2025, under Sections 108,
316(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah till
conclusion of trial.

3.It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is sister of co-accused. He also submitted that the main
allegation on the wife of the deceased and present applicant was living
separately with her-in-law at the time of alleged incident. Allegations
levelled against the applicant are false. He has been falsely implicated in
this case. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the
liberty and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant has apprehension
of her arrest by the police any time.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the anticipatory bail.

5. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another,
(2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject
finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration
invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
NABAIL No. 3562 of 2026
2

6. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can,
depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after
filing of the charge sheet till trial.

7. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while
considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to
consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of
his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence
including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as
leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be
generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case,
while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether
to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

8. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail,
nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant
till the trial.

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Sandhya @ Pinky, she shall be
released on anticipatory bail till the end of trial on her 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 make herself available before the Court concerned
on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police office.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by him
NABAIL No. 3562 of 2026
3

before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground
for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 6, 2026
T.S.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…