C.B.I v. Ramnath Mishra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.RC

: Vikash Chandra Tiwari : Rahul Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Yadav Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in in Special Case No.02 of 2022 (C.B.I. vs. Ramnath Mishra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.RC0072020A0004 of 2020, under Sections 120-B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Substantive Offences, Police Station C.B.I., District Ghaziabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged against five persons (non-applicant) and as per allegation, one co- accused Monika Rani was granted cash credit facility by the bank in the tune of Rs.10,00,00,000/- but deposit towards payment of the withdrawal were not made and therefore, borrower committed default to make payment of cash credit facility granted by the bank.

4. He next submits that during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of one Anil Sharma, who stated that he is employee of the husband of the applicant and on his instructions, the money which were transferred in his account from the account of co-accused Monika Rani, was transferred in the account of applicant.

5. He further submits that except the fact that from the account of Anil Sharma, in the account of applicant rupees 2.5 crore were transferred, there is no other evidence and allegation against the applicant on record. 2 ABAIL No. 4585 of 2023

6. He further submits that however Anil Sharma claimed himself to be one of the employee of the husband of the applicant but actually he was never in the employment of the husband of the applicant.

7. He further submits that actually firm of the husband of the applicant was having business transaction with the firms of Anil Sharma namely A.B.S. Associate and as business transaction rupees 2.5 crore were transferred in the account of the applicant.

8. He further submits that during investigation though applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but she was not arrested by the investigating agency and without her arrest, charge-sheet has been filed against her.

9. He further submits that after submission of the charge-sheet when applicant filed instant anticipatory bail application before this Court then Coordinate Bench of this Court on 25th April, 2023 was pleased to enlarge her on interim anticipatory bail.

10. He further submits that applicant is regularly attending the trial court and there is no allegation that she misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted to her by this Court.

11. He further submits that applicant is a lady and she is not having any other criminal history to her credit and as investigation of the case has already been concluded, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

12. He further submits that applicant is having apprehension, if interim anticipatory bail earlier granted to her is not confirmed then she will be sent to jail on her appearance before the trial court.

13. Per contra; learned counsel for the C.B.I. however opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced on behalf of the applicant.

14. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, it is a case in which it reflects that the borrowers defaulted to make the payment of the amount in the cash credit facility granted by the bank but applicant was not the borrower.

16. Record suggests that when it was revealed, rupees 2.5 crore were transferred in the account of the applicant from the account of one Anil Sharma then during investigation, she has been made accused in the present 3 ABAIL No. 4585 of 2023 matter.

17. However, rupees 2.5 crore were transferred in the account of applicant but it appears, the said transaction was made on the instructions of co- accused Lakshay Tanwar, the husband of the applicant and it could not be reflected that applicant directly involved in commission of the alleged crime and prima-facie, it appears only being wife of the co-accused Lakshya Tanwar, she has been made accused in the present matter.

18. Further, during investigation, however, applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but she was not arrested and without her arrest charge-sheet has been filed against her.

19. Further, after submission of the charge-sheet when applicant filed the instant anticipatory bail application then Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25th April 2023 enlarged her on interim anticipatory bail and there is no allegation that applicant misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted to her by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, rather as per the instructions of learned counsel for the C.B.I., applicant is continuously attending the trial court on each and every date either in person or through her counsel.

20. Further, applicant is lady and she is not having any other criminal history to her credit.

21. This Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after submission of the charge-sheet during trial custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary.

22. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

23. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 25.04.2023 is hereby confirmed. Applicant shall remain on anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial on the same condition as earlier imposed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while enlarging her on interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.04.2023.

24. The instant anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant - Priyanka Tanwar stands allowed. September 1, 2025 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Vikash Chandra Tiwari : Rahul Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Yadav Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in in Special Case No.02 of 2022 (C.B.I. vs. Ramnath Mishra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.RC0072020A0004 of 2020, under Sections 120-B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Substantive Offences, Police Station C.B.I., District Ghaziabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged against five persons (non-applicant) and as per allegation, one co- accused Monika Rani was granted cash credit facility by the bank in the tune of Rs.10,00,00,000/- but deposit towards payment of the withdrawal were not made and therefore, borrower committed default to make payment of cash credit facility granted by the bank.

4. He next submits that during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of one Anil Sharma, who stated that he is employee of the husband of the applicant and on his instructions, the money which were transferred in his account from the account of co-accused Monika Rani, was transferred in the account of applicant.

5. He further submits that except the fact that from the account of Anil Sharma, in the account of applicant rupees 2.5 crore were transferred, there is no other evidence and allegation against the applicant on record. 2 ABAIL No. 4585 of 2023

6. He further submits that however Anil Sharma claimed himself to be one of the employee of the husband of the applicant but actually he was never in the employment of the husband of the applicant.

7. He further submits that actually firm of the husband of the applicant was having business transaction with the firms of Anil Sharma namely A.B.S. Associate and as business transaction rupees 2.5 crore were transferred in the account of the applicant.

8. He further submits that during investigation though applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but she was not arrested by the investigating agency and without her arrest, charge-sheet has been filed against her.

9. He further submits that after submission of the charge-sheet when applicant filed instant anticipatory bail application before this Court then Coordinate Bench of this Court on 25th April, 2023 was pleased to enlarge her on interim anticipatory bail.

10. He further submits that applicant is regularly attending the trial court and there is no allegation that she misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted to her by this Court.

11. He further submits that applicant is a lady and she is not having any other criminal history to her credit and as investigation of the case has already been concluded, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

12. He further submits that applicant is having apprehension, if interim anticipatory bail earlier granted to her is not confirmed then she will be sent to jail on her appearance before the trial court.

13. Per contra; learned counsel for the C.B.I. however opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced on behalf of the applicant.

14. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, it is a case in which it reflects that the borrowers defaulted to make the payment of the amount in the cash credit facility granted by the bank but applicant was not the borrower.

16. Record suggests that when it was revealed, rupees 2.5 crore were transferred in the account of the applicant from the account of one Anil Sharma then during investigation, she has been made accused in the present 3 ABAIL No. 4585 of 2023 matter.

17. However, rupees 2.5 crore were transferred in the account of applicant but it appears, the said transaction was made on the instructions of co- accused Lakshay Tanwar, the husband of the applicant and it could not be reflected that applicant directly involved in commission of the alleged crime and prima-facie, it appears only being wife of the co-accused Lakshya Tanwar, she has been made accused in the present matter.

18. Further, during investigation, however, applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but she was not arrested and without her arrest charge-sheet has been filed against her.

19. Further, after submission of the charge-sheet when applicant filed the instant anticipatory bail application then Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25th April 2023 enlarged her on interim anticipatory bail and there is no allegation that applicant misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted to her by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, rather as per the instructions of learned counsel for the C.B.I., applicant is continuously attending the trial court on each and every date either in person or through her counsel.

20. Further, applicant is lady and she is not having any other criminal history to her credit.

21. This Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after submission of the charge-sheet during trial custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary.

22. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

23. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 25.04.2023 is hereby confirmed. Applicant shall remain on anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial on the same condition as earlier imposed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while enlarging her on interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.04.2023.

24. The instant anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant - Priyanka Tanwar stands allowed. September 1, 2025 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad