Seema Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
2025 Latest Caselaw 11318 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Seema Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 9 October, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:62404
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9616 of 2025   
 
   Seema Upadhyay    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Virendra Kumar Shukla   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 13
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.     

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The learned A.G.A submitted that he has completed instructions in the matter and he is ready to argue the case on merits and this Court proceeds to hear the present bail application on merits.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 284 of 2025, under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 351(3), 61(2) B.N.S, Police Station-Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow.

3. While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in 10 other criminal cases has been disclosed in para 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

4. It is stated that the applicant, who is infact a home maker has been implicated in the instant case only being a wife of co-accused Pramod Kumar Upadhyay, who is real brother of Prabhat Kumar Upadhyaya, whose interest has already been protected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 1310 of 2025. The order referred as extracted herein under:-

" 1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime Case Crime No. 284/2025, US-111(2) (b), 61(2), 316(5), 318(4), 351(3) B.N.S., P.S. Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

4. It is alleged that the informant purchased a plot measuring 1800 square feet from H.K. Infravision Private Limited through its authorized signatory, Pramod Kumar Upadhyay, after paying the consideration amount of Rs. 13,00,000/-. However, possession of the said plot was not delivered, and when the informant demanded possession, he was allegedly threatened to kill.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is contended that opposite party no. 2 has falsely implicated the applicant with mala fide intention. The applicant further undertakes to cooperate with the investigation as well as during trial.

6. Learned AGA, on the basis of instructions, submits that during investigation, offences under Sections 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita have been found against the applicant. No material has been found to substantiate the other offences mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted that the offences under Section 351(3) and 352 BNS are punishable up to maximum seven years. The instructions provided by the learned AGA are taken on record.

7. On due consideration to the offences on which the investigation is going on against the applicant are punishable up to maximum seven years, and in view of the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant to cooperate with the investigation, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case, in light of the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the investigation.

8. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-

9. 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.

10. The application is allowed."

5. It is further stated that a bare perusal of the F.I.R, indicates that it relates to execution of the sale deed by Pramod Kumar Upadhyay being authorized signatory of Sri H.K. Infravision Private Limited in favour of Urmila Singh and this aspect of the case is also evident from the copy sale deed, which has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the bail application, and in this view of the matter, it is apparent/ evident that the applicant has not committed any crime. Further submission is that in relation to execution of sale deed by the the authorized signatory of the Company knows as Sri H.K. Infravision Private Limited, various F.I.Rs were lodged and in one of the criminal cases i.e Case Crime No. 274 of 2025, in which also the applicant was implicated, the interest of the applicant has been protected by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9095 of 2025 titled as "Seema Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P.'

6. Lastly, it is stated that infact no crime has been committed by the applicant and taking note of the same as also the aforesaid and also the fact that after execution of the sale deed as per the information available to the applicant, the possession of the property under sale deed was handed over to the vendee.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel.

8. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also taking note of the fact that interest of the co-accused Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay has been protected as also in a similar case, the interest of the applicant has been protected by this Court and further in the instant case, the sale deed was executed by Pramod Kumar being authorized signatory of the Company, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Seema Upadhyay be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

(v) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

10. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

10. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

.

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

October 9, 2025

Preeti