Allahabad High Court
Mamta Sinha vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:75157
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1477 of 2025
Mamta Sinha
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Nadeem Murtaza, Anjani Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Amit Kumar Dixit, Rama Kant Dixit, Shivam Mehrotra
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.The applicant has moved the present application praying for grant of anticipatory bail in 166 of 2025, Under Sections: 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS, Police Station: Talkatora, District: Lucknow.
2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State who has opposed the bail and filed counter affidavit which is taken on record.
3.This Court while giving interim protection has passed the following order on 14.10.2025:
"The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.: 166 of 2025, Under Sections: 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS, Police Station: Talkatora, District: Lucknow.
Heard Shri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken no record.
In the prosecution case, the allegation against the applicant is that House No. A-34A, Rajajipuram, Lucknow, which had been attached by the Enforcement Directorate vide order dated 30.09.2016, was under embargo from sale or transfer. Despite this, the applicant is alleged to have executed a gift deed on 08.02.2024, transferring the said property in favour of her son, co-accused Kumar Raje, who thereafter sold the property to one Vinay Kumar Gupta through a registered sale deed dated 25.01.2025.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old lady aged about 65 years, and the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate. It is contended that the applicant has already submitted her representation to the investigating officer, categorically denying that she ever visited the registry office or executed any gift deed in favour of her son.
It is further submitted that, in paragraph seven of the said application/representation, it has been specifically stated that the applicant?s photograph, biometrics, and signatures may be verified with the records available in the registry office. The applicant has not committed any offence and undertakes to cooperate fully in the investigation.
It is further argued by Shri Murtaza that the only beneficiary after the alleged denial of execution of the gift deed by the applicant is the purchaser of the property, whose role should also be investigated by the investigating officer.
Learned AGA has opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that, as per the investigation so far, the signature and photograph on the gift deed dated 08.02.2024 prima facie match according to the investigation, however, biometric fingerprint verification is still pending.
Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the photocopy of the gift deed placed at page no. 237, as well as page no. 5 of the paper book, which contains the original photograph of the applicant and has submitted that the photographs on both documents appear to be prima facie different.Issue notice to respondent No. 2.
Steps be taken within a week.
List on 19.11.2025. The counter affidavit so filed shall be supported by the personal affidavit of the investigating officer
Perused the record.
Considering the fact that the applicant has explained her criminal antecedents in paragraph 38 of the bail application as well as in the supplementary affidavit; she is a 65-year-old lady; the offences are prima facie triable by a Magistrate; biometric verification from the registry office is still pending; and she has undertaken to cooperate in the investigation, this Court, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, finds it appropriate to grant interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within twenty days from today. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.
The investigating officer shall remain present on the next date to assist the Court.
4.In compliance of above order, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Sub Inspector is present before the court. He states that he is making an endeavour to obtain original deed which is hypothecated in the bank and once it is received, byo-metric verification shall also be conducted and the investigation shall be concluded.
5.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in compliance of order extracted above, the applicant has filed bonds and he has been enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the ongoing investigation.
The investigating officer does not dispute the fact that the applicant is cooperating in the investigation.
6.Considering the interim protection granted by this court vide order extracted above which has not been misused by the applicant, undertaking that the applicant shall cooperate in the ongoing investigation, the applicant who is a lady is 65 years old, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the interim protection granted earlier is liable to be and is hereby made absolute.
7.The application is allowed accordingly.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
November 19, 2025
kkb/
