Allahabad High Court

SUSHMA GIRI AND 36 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and made the interim bail absolute, subject to the conditions previously imposed.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad entertained an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by Sushma Giri and 36 co‑accused who were named in FIR No. 36 of 2021 for offences under numerous IPC sections, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. The applicants argued that they had not been arrested, the charge‑sheet was already filed, and they would cooperate with the trial, seeking release on bail if arrested. The State, represented by an A.G.A., offered no opposition. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Court considered the nature of the accusations, the applicants’ conduct, and the fact that they were regularly appearing before the trial court. The Court affirmed the interim anticipatory bail granted on 20‑11‑2025, converting it into absolute bail on the same terms, and ordered that any breach of conditions could lead to cancellation.

Issues considered

Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC in view of the nature and gravity of the offences alleged.
Whether the interim anticipatory bail previously granted should be converted into absolute bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 — s. 7
Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 112, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 188, 269, 270, 271(h), 323, 332, 336, 34, 352, 353, 427, 504, 506
Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act — s. 3

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
high court
IPC offences
bail conditions
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9325 of 2025

Sushma Giri And 36 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. The applicants- Sushma Giri, Vipin Yadav, Kundan Singh, Shekhar
Yadav, Pradeep Giri, Vicky Giri, Raj Kumar, Shiva Yadav, Vijay Giri,
Rajesh Giri, Pyare Giri, Pankaj Gorh, Sita Ram Gupta, Sanjay Yadav,
Kamlesh Yadav, Jokhan Giri, Ankit Giri, Chandan Yadav, Bhanu Yadav,
Bhagwan Jaiswal, Sunil Yadav, Alok Giri @ Ashok Giri, Mahendra Yadav,
Govind Sao, Gareeb Kharwar, Nitesh Yadav, Dileep Yadav, Shambhu
Yadav, Bhola Yadav, Pintoo Yadav @ Rajesh, Potan Yadav, Rinku Yadav,
Ramdheen Giri, Prince Singh @ Raj Kumar, Smt. Suman Giri, Guddan Ram
and Jhagadu Ram were granted interim anticipatory bail in the present case
by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025. The said order is quoted herein
below:

"1. Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri
B.P. Maurya, 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. 36 of 2021 under Sections 34, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153,
323, 352, 332, 336, 353, 109, 112, 188, 269, 270, 271(h), 504, 506, 427
IPC, 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and section 3 of Prevention of
Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Sahabganj, District
Chandauli with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may
be released on bail.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that 48 named
persons and around 250 unknown persons have been made accused in the
present case. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, some altercation
NABAIL No. 9325 of 2025
2

took place amongst the applicants and some unknown persons and the
police. It is further submitted that chargesheet in the case has already
been filed and applicants were not arrested during investigation and they
were served with notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. It is further submitted
that one of the co-accused Swami has already been enlarged on
anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
18.6.2025. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate
during trial and they would appear as and when required by the
investigating agency or Court and in case they are granted anticipatory
bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all
conditions of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that he has no instructions
in the matter.

5. 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, the Court must consider
nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility
of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire
available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of
accused has also to be taken into consideration.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all
attending facts and circumstances of the case, let the applicants Sushma
Giri, Vipin Yadav, Kundan Singh, Shekhar Yadav, Pradeep Giri, Vicky
Giri, Raj Kumar, Shiva Yadav, Vijay Giri, Rajesh Giri, Pyare Giri,
Pankaj Gorh, Sita Ram Gupta, Sanjay Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav, Jokhan
Giri, Ankit Giri, Chandan Yadav, Bhanu Yadav, Bhagwan Jaiswal, Sunil
Yadav, Alok Giri @ Ashok Giri, Mahendra Yadav, Govind Sao, Gareeb
Kharwar, Nitesh Yadav, Dileep Yadav, Shambhu Yadav, Bhola Yadav,
Pintoo Yadav @ Rajesh, Potan Yadav, Rinku Yadav, Ramdheen Giri,
Prince Singh @ Raj Kumar, Smt. Suman Giri, Guddan Ram, Jhagadu
Ram in the event of their arrest, be released on interim anticipatory bail
on their furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned till
15.12.2025 with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and they would appear
before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court
concerned;

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
NABAIL No. 9325 of 2025
3

as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;

(iii) The applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse
the liberty of bail.

(iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Court concerned.

7. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to
file appropriate application for cancellation of the interim anticipatory
bail granted to the applicants.

8. Put up this case as fresh on 15.12.2025.

9. In the meantime, learned AGA is directed to obtain instructions in the
matter by the next date."

3. Earlier interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants vide order
dated 20.11.2025 and in pursuance of aforesaid order, the applicants are
regularly appearing before the learned trial court which is clear from perusal
of order sheet appended in the compliance affidavit dated 17.04.2026. The
investigation is complete in this matter and chargesheet has been submitted.
The applicants are regularly appearing before the learned trial court,
therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicants.

4. In view of above, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicants
vide order dated 20.11.2025 is hereby made absolute. The applicants will
remain on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on the same terms and
conditions as given in the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by this Court.

5. The anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

6. In default or misuse of any of the conditions mentioned in the order dated
20.11.2025, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-
complainant would be at liberty to file appropriate application for
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the
concerned court.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

September 28, 2026
Radhika

Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…