Smt Surabhi Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 11435 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt Surabhi Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 October, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:182244
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11199 of 2023   
 
   Smt Surabhi Gupta    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Atul Kumar Shahi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Nitin Agarwal   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 71
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.      

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this present anticipatory bail application, applicant Smt. Surabhi Gupta, who is involved in Complaint Case No. 81 of 2023, Nitin Kumar Versus Saurabh Gupta and others, under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor, seeks enlargement on anticipatory bail during the pendency of trial.

3. The applicant Smt. Surabhi Gupta is wife of the complainant, namely, Nitin Kumar.

4. On 11.10.2023, following order was passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which is quoted below:-

"1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Smt. Surabhi Gupta in Complaint Case No. 81 of 2023 (Nitin Kumar Vs. Saurabh Gupta and Others) under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

3. The applicant is the wife of the complainant. There are several litigations going on between the parties since 2011 and in the present case, the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons is stated to have assaulted the complainant on 24.12.2022 thereby causing grievous injuries to him. The complaint was filed by the complainant on 3.1.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The complaint case has been filed after a delay of ten days and there is no proper explanation of the said delay. It is next stated that the injury report is a tainted one, as on an application moved by the applicant and other co-accused persons, an inquiry was set up by the Commissioner, Moradabad, and it was opined that the injury was simple in nature and was not dangerous to life. The injury report has been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application. It is also stated that the victim herein has been made accused. The matter was challenged before this Court by filing a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and was sent for mediation, whereupon the mediation proceedings failed and subsequent to it, the said petition was disposed of. It is further submitted that the co-accused Lavish Gupta and Gaurav Gupta, brother-in-laws of the complainant, have been granted interim protection by way of interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.9.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 9973 of 2023.

5. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Investigation is going on as the charge-sheet has yet not been filed in the matter. The applicant is cooperating in the investigation and is ready to do so in future also.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. states that he has not received instructions so far in this matter. Some time be granted to him to enable him to obtain instructions.

7. Matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

9. Two weeks' time is granted to the opposite parties to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

10. Connect with Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 9973 of 2023 and list this case on 20.11.2023 along with connected matter before the appropriate Bench.

11. As an interim measure, till the next date of listing, the applicant is granted interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid complaint case. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

(ii) 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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant."

5. The aforesaid anticipatory bail order dated 11.10.2023 was further extended vide orders dated 02.04.2024, 22.04.2024 and lastly on 23.05.2024.

6. The complainant/opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the complaint dated 03.01.2023.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant relying upon judgment of this Court in the case of Shivam Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in AIR Online 2021 All 484 submitted that since the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused/applicant has been dismissed, therefore, this anticipatory bail application of the applicant is not maintainable and relief as sought for by means of present anticipatory bail application cannot be granted to the applicant.

8. In response, learned counsel for applicant relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh and another Versus The State of Rajasthan and another (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1530 of 2018) submitted that even after dismissal of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the applicant, the instant anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the trial proceeding pursuant to complaint is not stayed by this Court, therefore, trial of the applicant is proceeding in which she is participating. The applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 11.10.2023 and there is no allegation against her that she has misused the liberty of anticipatory bail in any manner.

10. In view of aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh and another (supra), this Court is also of the view that anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is fully maintainable.

11. Accordingly, aforesaid interim anticipatory bail order dated 11.10.2023 is made absolute till conclusion of the trial, subject to following conditions :

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.

(ii) That 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 tamper with the evidence.

(iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

(iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the concerned Court below will be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant after recording reasons.

12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

13. It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application only and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The concerned Court below shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.

(Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.)

October 13, 2025

T.S.