Allahabad High Court
SARITA DEVI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Sarita Devi and her son Abhishek Kumar, who were named in an FIR under Sections 316(5), 351(3), 352 of the IPC and the Essential Commodities Act. The applicants claimed the FIR was false, arising from a delayed filing after a supply‑inspector’s inquiry that had already led to the cancellation of their fair‑price‑shop licence. The State opposed bail, citing allegations by Anganwadi workers that the applicants failed to supply ICDS meals and food grains to ration‑card holders. The Court noted the excessive delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of any criminal antecedents, and the fact that an inquiry had already been completed, concluding that these factors warranted relief. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, emphasizing that the order was limited to the bail application and not an opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC despite the FIR alleging offences under the IPC and the Essential Commodities Act.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the prior cancellation of the licence affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the allegations, if true, constitute a cognizable offence justifying arrest.
- Whether the applicants’ lack of criminal antecedents influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Essential Commodities Act — s. 3, 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 316(5), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false FIR
- fair price shop licence
- supply inspector
- essential commodities
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9695 of 2026
Sarita Devi And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prachi Yadav, Ramendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicants and Learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants in Case Crime No.180/2026 under Sections 316(5), 351(3), 352
BNS and 3/7 E.C. Act, P.S. Kandharapur, District -Azamgarh, with a
prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend
their arrest in the abovementioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicant
No.1 and her son have been falsely nominated in the F.I.R. The applicant
No.1 is a fair price shop agent. The allegation against the applicant No.1,
in brief, is of violating the terms and conditions of the licence. On notice
being issued to the applicant No.1, her explanation was not found to be
satisfactory. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the
applicant No.1 is being targeted solely due to the fact that the applicant
No.1 did not fulfill the illegitimate demand of the Supply Inspector. The
applicants have no criminal antecedents.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that
Smt. Anita Yadav and Smt. Sudha Tiwari, who are Anganwadi Workers,
had made allegations that they had not been given I.C.D.S. and hot
cooked food grains for the month of October, 2025 to May, 2026. Many
other allegations have been made against the applicants of not supplying
NABAIL No. 9695 of 2026
2
food grains or supplying less food grains to the ration card holders. The
explanation given by the applicant No.1 was found to be false, her licence
was cancelled and an appeal there-against is pending in which no interim
relief has been given to the applicant No.1. Learned A.G.A. has not
pointed out any criminal antecedents of the applicants.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
6. The applicants are mother and son. They have no criminal antecedents.
The F.I.R. has been lodged supposedly on the basis of some enquiry
conducted by the Supply Inspector against the applicant No.1, in which
her explanation was not found to be satisfactory. The inquiry was
conducted on 08.07.2026 and 10.07.2026. The approval of the District
Magistrate was given on 16.07.2026 and despite this the F.I.R. has been
lodged on 18.07.2026. In the opinion of the Court, there is an excessive
delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Even otherwise an inquiry has already been
conducted in which the fair price shop licence of applicant No.1 has been
cancelled.
7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicants on anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants
is allowed.
9. In the event of the arrest of the applicants-Sarita Devi and Abhishek
Kumar, they shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on
anticipatory bail on furnishing of their personal bond and surety to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
concerned with the following conditions:-
i. the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;
ii. that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or
NABAIL No. 9695 of 2026
3
to any police officer;
iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court;
iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 17, 2026
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…