Anjali Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment

1. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a direction to permit the Applicant to furnish common sureties in respect of all 70 cases, as mentioned in the relief clause of the Application, in which bail has already been granted by the court below but the Applicant could not be released since she could not arrange the separate sureties in each of the cases.

The brief facts of the case are that multiple FIRs have been lodged against the Applicant at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, for offences under Sections 420, 427, 506, and 120-B of the IPC. The total number of cases stands at 70. The Applicant contends that she was working as a personal Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. assistant with M/s Octagon Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. from January 2011, resigned on 29.09.2017, and had no role in the day-to-day affairs thereafter. It is further contended that despite her resignation, she has been falsely implicated in these cases, which are similar in nature and pertain to the same transactions.

3. It is submitted that the Applicant has been in judicial custody since 18.09.2023. In several of the said cases, she has been granted bail by the learned courts below. However, her release could not be secured as the orders require her to furnish two separate sureties in each case, which is practically impossible considering the large number of cases.

4. The Applicant applied for bail in all 70 cases, the reference of which has been given in the relief clause of the application, which are reproduced as below:- Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar S. No. 1 Case Crime Nos. 220 of 2024 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 221 of 2024 142 of 2024 144 of 2024 145 of 2024 157 of 2024 159 of 2024 190 of 2024 182 of 2024 183 of 2024 186 of 2024 207 of 2024 232 of 2024 172 of 2024 170 of 2024 Sections 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 427, 120-B IPC 420, 427, 120-B IPC 420, 427, 120-B IPC 420,427, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 169 of 2024 168 of 2024 418 of 2023 236 of 2024 177 of 2024 184 of 2024 185 of 2024 176 of 2024 457 of 2023 478 of 2023 471 of 2023 467 of 2023 462 of 2023 479 of 2023 450 of 2023 503 of 2023 455 of 2023 466 of 2023 465 of 2023 468 of 2023 501 of 2023 469 of 2023 470 of 2023 472 of 2023 500 of 2023 473 of 2023 502 of 2023 219 of 2024 218 of 2024 204 of 2024 179 of 2024 180 of 2024 29 of 2024 129 of 2024 25 of 2024 26 of 2024 27 of 2024 28 of 2024 233 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 506, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 406 of 2023 215 of 2024 132 of 2024 216 of 2024 449 of 2023 458 of 2023 498 of 2023 407 of 2023 202 of 2024 214 of 2024 178 of 2024 213 of 2024 208 of 2024 175 of 2024 200 of 2024 487 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 427, 120-B IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420 IPC 420, 427, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC 420, 120-B IPC

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that in similar circumstances, the Coordinate Benches of this Court has granted relief by permitting common sureties in Criminal Misc. Application No. C-528/226/2024 (order dated 16.08.2024) and Criminal Misc. Application No. C-528/369/2025 (order dated

25.03.2025).

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that the Applicant produced a Rent Agreement as proof of tenancy. Same is taken on record.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application on the ground that the satisfaction of sureties lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the informants in the individual cases should also be heard before any blanket relief is granted. He further submits that the Rent Agreement provided by the Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. learned counsel for the Applicant is not a valid ground as the tenancy is changeable.

8. This Court considered the submissions of both sides and perused the record. It is evident that the Applicant is facing multiple prosecutions, all arising out of similar allegations of cheating in the name of providing land/plots. In most of these cases, she has been enlarged on bail, but her continued incarceration is solely due to her inability to furnish separate sureties in each case.

9. The Coordinate Benches of this Court, in previous orders dated

16.08.2024 and 25.03.2025 in the Applicant’s earlier petitions, have granted similar relief, allowing the Applicant to furnish common sureties in multiple cases. The present matter stands on the same footing.

10. This Court is, therefore, confronted with the question as to whether, in such exceptional circumstances, the Applicant may be permitted to furnish a single set of sureties and personal bond to operate across all the FIRs in which bail has already been granted.

11. The provisions of Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern the nature and sufficiency of bonds and sureties to be executed upon the grant of bail. The law empowers the Court to determine, in each case, what conditions would reasonably secure the presence of the accused at trial.

12. In the opinion of this Court, when bail has already been granted in each of the 70 FIRs, and there is no allegation of breach of Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J. conditions or flight risk, the continued incarceration of the Applicant solely for want of multiple sureties is neither procedurally necessary nor constitutionally tenable.

13. This Court is also mindful of recent judicial observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in comparable contexts, particularly in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024 INSC 617), where, in view of multiple prosecutions and the impossibility of furnishing distinct sureties in each case, the Hon’ble Apex Court permitted the accused to execute one personal bond and two common sureties per State, holding such a direction to be legally permissible, proportionate, and consistent with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution.

14. It has also been judicially recognised that when the substratum of allegations is common, the imposition of repetitive surety conditions may, in effect, operate as a denial of bail in substance, even where it has been formally granted.

15. In the present case, the multiplicity of FIRs appears to have created a procedural bottleneck, and not one rooted in any substantive apprehension of the Applicant's conduct.

16. In the interest of justice, to prevent undue hardship to the Applicant, and to secure her right to liberty, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application.

17. The apprehension of abscondence raised by the State can be sufficiently addressed by imposing suitable conditions. ORDER Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand 6 Ashish Naithani J. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present application is allowed, subject to the following conditions: i. The Applicant, Anjali Tyagi, shall furnish her current permanent address, along with valid proof thereof, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and the investigating agency. She shall not change her residence without prior intimation to the trial court concerned. ii. The Applicant shall deposit her passport, if any, with the trial court within one week of her release. She shall not apply for the issuance of a fresh passport or any travel documents without prior permission of the trial court concerned. iii. The learned courts below are directed to accept common sureties for the release of the Applicant in all the cases mentioned in the annexed list, wherein she has already been granted bail. iv. The Applicant shall also provide a written undertaking to the effect that: v. She shall remain present before the Investigating Officer and the concerned courts as and when required; vi. She shall not tamper with evidence or threaten or influence any witness; Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand 7 Ashish Naithani J. vii. She shall not leave the country without prior leave of the competent court. viii. The Superintendent, District Jail, Haridwar, shall take all necessary steps for the Applicant’s release upon acceptance of the consolidated bond and sureties, unless her custody is required in any other unconnected matter. ix. It is clarified that this direction is being issued as a matter of legal and procedural economy, considering the large number of FIRs arising from similar allegations, and shall not be treated as a precedent in any unrelated proceedings.

18. Let a copy of this order be circulated to the District Judge, Haridwar, and to all concerned Judicial Magistrates and courts for immediate compliance. Dated: 13.08.2025 (Ashish Naithani, J.) Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand 8 Ashish Naithani J.