Allahabad High Court

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the first informant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ratan Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

3. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0334 of 2025, under Sections 308(6) and 338 B.N.S., Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and she has been falsely implicated in the present prosecution. It is further submitted that father of the first informant Sanjeev Agarwal has from time to time has transferred certain amount in the bank account of the applicant and she has been exploited for a long time as her husband Sanjay Nikhra deserted her after the birth of only child. It is further submitted that at best offence under Sections 212 and 2 NABAIL No. 9761 of 2025 217 BNS can be made out, which is bailable offence and no offence under Section 338 is made out against the applicant as she has neither prepared any forged document and nor signed the same. It is further submitted that a complaint which is said to have been filed by the applicant after lodging the FIR, which learned counsel for the first informant on the last occasion has placed before this Court, has not been lodged by her and it is a manufactured document. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that father of the first informant has put his signature on the examination form of the daughter of the applicant as father of the said child. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and she would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co- operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the applicant is in the habit of indulging in extortion and she is also in the habit of preparing forged documents in order to get benefit from them. It is further submitted that the applicant has obtained forged birth certificate of her child and she has also filed a complaint of maintenance against the father of the first informant showing the father of the first informant as her husband whereas she has filed a complaint on IGRS in which she took U-turn alleging therein that she was raped by father of the first informant as well as her husband Sanjay Nikhra and the allegations in the said complaint have not been found to be true.

6. Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the applicant has obtained forged birth certificate from the municipal corporation in order to get benefit, therefore, offence under Section 338 of BNS is made out against the applicant.

7. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has placed a paper before this Court which is a copy of the complaint and it has been submitted that the first informant has filed a complaint on the same set of facts on the same day when the FIR has been lodged and this fact has not 3 NABAIL No. 9761 of 2025 been disclosed in the complaint case.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the affidavit filed in support of this application.

9. The applicant is said to have obtained various documents and the birth certificate is also said to have been obtained regarding birth of her child in which the name of the father of the first informant has been mentioned as her father. The father of the first informant is also said to have signed the examination form of the child of the applicant, which has been denied by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

10. In view of the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials so available on record, in the interest of justice, this case requires some further hearing with updated instructions from the I.O. regarding genuineness of various documents including the signature of the father of the first informant Sanjeev Agarwal in the application form as well as examination form of the child of the applicant.

11. 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, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

12. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant- Smt. Sangita Agarwal involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 the Court concerned till 19.1.2026 with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that she would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; 4 NABAIL No. 9761 of 2025 (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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of interim interim anticipatory bail bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. (v) The applicant shall not indulge in any illegal act and shall cooperate in the investigation.

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

14. List this case on 19.1.2026 as fresh.

15. In the meantime, learned AGA may obtain updated instructions in the matter.

16. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the claim of the applicant. December 15, 2025 Abhishek (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the first informant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ratan Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

3. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0334 of 2025, under Sections 308(6) and 338 B.N.S., Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant and she has been falsely implicated in the present prosecution. It is further submitted that father of the first informant Sanjeev Agarwal has from time to time has transferred certain amount in the bank account of the applicant and she has been exploited for a long time as her husband Sanjay Nikhra deserted her after the birth of only child. It is further submitted that at best offence under Sections 212 and 2 NABAIL No. 9761 of 2025 217 BNS can be made out, which is bailable offence and no offence under Section 338 is made out against the applicant as she has neither prepared any forged document and nor signed the same. It is further submitted that a complaint which is said to have been filed by the applicant after lodging the FIR, which learned counsel for the first informant on the last occasion has placed before this Court, has not been lodged by her and it is a manufactured document. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that father of the first informant has put his signature on the examination form of the daughter of the applicant as father of the said child. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and she would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co- operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the applicant is in the habit of indulging in extortion and she is also in the habit of preparing forged documents in order to get benefit from them. It is further submitted that the applicant has obtained forged birth certificate of her child and she has also filed a complaint of maintenance against the father of the first informant showing the father of the first informant as her husband whereas she has filed a complaint on IGRS in which she took U-turn alleging therein that she was raped by father of the first informant as well as her husband Sanjay Nikhra and the allegations in the said complaint have not been found to be true.

6. Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the applicant has obtained forged birth certificate from the municipal corporation in order to get benefit, therefore, offence under Section 338 of BNS is made out against the applicant.

7. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has placed a paper before this Court which is a copy of the complaint and it has been submitted that the first informant has filed a complaint on the same set of facts on the same day when the FIR has been lodged and this fact has not 3 NABAIL No. 9761 of 2025 been disclosed in the complaint case.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the affidavit filed in support of this application.

9. The applicant is said to have obtained various documents and the birth certificate is also said to have been obtained regarding birth of her child in which the name of the father of the first informant has been mentioned as her father. The father of the first informant is also said to have signed the examination form of the child of the applicant, which has been denied by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

10. In view of the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials so available on record, in the interest of justice, this case requires some further hearing with updated instructions from the I.O. regarding genuineness of various documents including the signature of the father of the first informant Sanjeev Agarwal in the application form as well as examination form of the child of the applicant.

11. 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, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

12. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant- Smt. Sangita Agarwal involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 the Court concerned till 19.1.2026 with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that she would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; 4 NABAIL No. 9761 of 2025 (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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of interim interim anticipatory bail bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. (v) The applicant shall not indulge in any illegal act and shall cooperate in the investigation.

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

14. List this case on 19.1.2026 as fresh.

15. In the meantime, learned AGA may obtain updated instructions in the matter.

16. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the claim of the applicant. December 15, 2025 Abhishek (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)