Allahabad High Court
SMT. ALSABA @ SABA PARVEENversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the prima facie case and seriousness of the allegations, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Alsaba @ Saba Parveen in Crime No. 786 of 2025, alleging false implication in offences including extortion and a honey‑trap scheme. The applicant claimed innocence, citing a delayed FIR and an earlier complaint she had lodged against the informant’s husband. The State opposed, presenting evidence of nude photographs, extortion of Rs.1.60 lakh, and a prima facie case against the applicant. The Court examined the extraordinary nature of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, relying on several Supreme Court precedents that restrict its grant to exceptional circumstances. It found that the material on record established a reasonable basis for the accusations and that granting bail could hamper the investigation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the prima facie case and seriousness of the allegations.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication is substantiated by the evidence.
- Whether the extraordinary power under Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 B.N.S. can be exercised in the present facts.
- Whether the nature of the alleged honey‑trap and extortion warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 111(1), 115(2), 308(5), 318(4), 351(2), 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.
- honey trap
- extortion
- prima facie case
- extraordinary power
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8628 of 2026
Smt. Alsaba @ Saba Parveen
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Maneesh Tiwari, Pawan Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and
perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No.786 of 2025, under Sections 111(1), 318(4), 115(2), 351(2),
308(5) B.N.S., Police Station - Civil Lines, District Moradabad, with a
prayer to grant her anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing
to do with the alleged offence, in spite of which the police are trying to arrest
her. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 11.04.2025, whereas
the FIR was lodged after a very long delay on 09.10.2025. In fact, the
present FIR dated 09.10.2025 was lodged as a counterblast to the earlier FIR
dated 24.09.2025, lodged by the present applicant against the husband of the
informant of the FIR dated 09.10.2025. The applicant is a lady and has no
criminal antecedent to her credit. The other co-accused has been enlarged on
regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during
investigation and trial and shall appear as and when required by the
Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has also been stated that, in
case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the
liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all
the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.
NABAIL No. 8628 of 2026
2
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail and submitted that this is a case of a honey trap and nude
photographs of the husband of the informant were clicked, which are part of
the case diary. In the FIR dated 24.09.2025, earlier lodged by the present
applicant, against the husband of the present informant, the police have
submitted a final report. A copy of the final report has been appended along
with the affidavit of compliance. A prima facie offence is made out against
the present applicant, and she is the main accused. The husband of the
informant was called by the applicant to her house, where his nude
photographs were taken, and he was physically assaulted by the applicant
and other co-accused nominated in the FIR. In order to falsely implicate the
husband of the informant, a false FIR was lodged by the present applicant.
The applicant had extorted an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from the husband of
the informant. There is ample evidence on record to show that the husband
of the informant was extorted by the applicant and other co-accused
nominated in the FIR. The applicant cannot claim parity with regular bail
orders. She ought to have applied for regular bail in the present case.
5. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. The applicant lodged an FIR on 24.09.2025 against the husband of the
present informant as Case Crime No. 735 of 2025 under Sections 69, 351(2),
and 64 of the BNS, wherein a final report was submitted by the police after
due investigation. Several nude photographs of the husband of the informant
are available in the case diary. This is a matter of a honey trap, and an
amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- was extorted from the husband of the informant.
The first informant as well as the husband of the informant have supported
the prosecution case as contained in the FIR dated 09.10.2025. A prima facie
offence is made out from the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses
against the applicant. It has been held in various judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that bail is a rule but jail is an exception, but so far as
anticipatory bail is concerned, it ought to have been granted in
exceptional cases since it is an extraordinary power.
7. In the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and
Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
NABAIL No. 8628 of 2026
3
power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. While called
upon to exercise the said power, the Court has to be very cautious as the
grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may
lead to miscarriage of justice. When warrant of arrest or proclamation is
issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoking extraordinary power. The
relevant paragraph no. 30 of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) is quoted as under:
"30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said
to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that
anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its
grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court
depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon
to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious
as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious
cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the
investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or
distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that
the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of
such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an
individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall
be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or
proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the
extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the
Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest
of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep
absconding is not entitled to such grant."
8. In the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019)
9 SCC 24, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that arrest is a part of procedure
of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but
several other purposes. The power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of
B.N.S.S. has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail
should be granted only in exceptional cases. The relevant paragraph no. 69
of P. Chidambaram (supra) is reproduced as under:
"69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to
NABAIL No. 8628 of 2026
4
secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes.
Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same
has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should
be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred
upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as
to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant
fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant
of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in
the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be
circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be
granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances
exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. "
9. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak Yashwant Patil and
another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, relevant paragraph nos.14 and 15
whereof read as under:
"14....................
74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the
investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may
be circumstances in which the accused may provide
information leading to discovery of material facts and
relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper
the investigation, Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance
between the individual's right to personal freedom and the
right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused
as to the material so far collected and to collect more
information which may lead to recovery of relevant
information........
6...........
75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation
intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v.
State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4
NABAIL No. 8628 of 2026
5
SCC 303: 2005 SCC (Cri) 933], it was held as under: (SCC
p. 313, para 19)
"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of
investigation intended to secure several
purposes. The accused may have to be
questioned in detail regarding various facets of
motive, preparation, commission and aftermath
of the crime and the connection of other persons,
if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances
in which the accused may provide information
leading to discovery of material facts. It may be
necessary to curtail his freedom in order to
enable the investigation to proceed without
hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons
connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent
his disappearance, to maintain law and order in
the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest
may become an inevitable part of the process of
investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest
cannot be gone into in an application under
Section 438 of the Code. The role of the
investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional
scope of interference by the court in the process
of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily
will not interfere with the investigation of a
crime or with the arrest of the accused in a
cognizable offence. An interim order restraining
arrest, if passed while dealing with an
application under Section 438 of the Code will
amount to interference in the investigation,
which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section
438 of the Code."
76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694: (2011) 1 SCC
(Cri) 514], the Supreme Court laid down the factors and
NABAIL No. 8628 of 2026
6
parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory
bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the accused must be
properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the
court must evaluate the available material against the
accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should
also consider whether the accusations have been made only
with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her.
77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
[Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,
(2011) 1 SCC 694: (2011) 1 SCC (Crl) 514] and other
judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash
Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of
Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468], the
Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 386, para 19)
"19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in
a serious offence are required to be satisfied and
further while granting such relief, the court must
record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail
can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the court is prima facie of
the view that the applicant has falsely been
enroped in the crime and would not misuse his
liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T.
Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T.
Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC
(Cri) 345], State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid
Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of
Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S.
Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain
Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain
Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305: (2009) 1 SCC
NABAIL No. 8628 of 2026
7
(Cri) 1].)"
Economic offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of
economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different
class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In
Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
[Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2
SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic
offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."
15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Constitution Bench of this Court held that
while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest 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 or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:-
"92.4. 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; equally
whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be
imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case,
and subject to the discretion of the court."
10. As per the allegations put forth in the FIR, serious allegations have been
levelled against the applicant. The investigation is at a preliminary stage, and
the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to unearth the truth.
Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the case
registered against the applicant is false. At this stage, there is no material on
record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the applicant.
The material that has come on record and the preliminary investigation,
appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations.
NABAIL No. 8628 of 2026
8
11. In view of this Court, the parameters of granting regular bail and
anticipatory bail are different and it is not necessary that the grounds which
are sufficient to enlarge an accused on regular bail must also be sufficient to
enlarge him/her on anticipatory bail. Further, the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of
Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 also observed that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power and therefore in view of this
Court being extraordinary power it cannot be used in routine manner.
12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory
bail.
13. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 16, 2026
Radhika
Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…