Uttarakhand High Court
3 August vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 911 of 2025
13 August, 2025
Anjali Tyagi ......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
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.
2. 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
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7273
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:-
S. Case Crime Sections Police
No. Nos. Station
1 220 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC Bahadrabad,
District
2 221 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC Haridwar
3 142 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
4 144 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
5 145 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
6 157 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
7 159 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
8 190 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
9 182 of 2024 420, 427, 120-B IPC
10 183 of 2024 420, 427, 120-B IPC
11 186 of 2024 420, 427, 120-B IPC
12 207 of 2024 420,427, 120-B IPC
13 232 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
14 172 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
15 170 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7273
16 169 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
17 168 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
18 418 of 2023 420, 120-B IPC
19 236 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
20 177 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
21 184 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
22 185 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
23 176 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
24 457 of 2023 420, 506, 120-B IPC
25 478 of 2023 420, 120-B IPC
26 471 of 2023 420, 120-B IPC
27 467 of 2023 420, 120-B IPC
28 462 of 2023 420, 120-B IPC
29 479 of 2023 420, 120-B IPC
30 450 of 2023 420, 120-B IPC
31 503 of 2023 420 IPC
32 455 of 2023 420 IPC
33 466 of 2023 420 IPC
34 465 of 2023 420 IPC
35 468 of 2023 420 IPC
36 501 of 2023 420 IPC
37 469 of 2023 420 IPC
38 470 of 2023 420 IPC
39 472 of 2023 420 IPC
40 500 of 2023 420 IPC
41 473 of 2023 420 IPC
42 502 of 2023 420 IPC
43 219 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
44 218 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
45 204 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
46 179 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
47 180 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
48 29 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
49 129 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
50 25 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
51 26 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
52 27 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
53 28 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
54 233 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7273
55 406 of 2023 420, 120-B IPC
56 215 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
57 132 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
58 216 of 2024 420, 427, 120-B IPC
59 449 of 2023 420 IPC
60 458 of 2023 420 IPC
61 498 of 2023 420 IPC
62 407 of 2023 420 IPC
63 202 of 2024 420, 427, 120-B IPC
64 214 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
65 178 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
66 213 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
67 208 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
68 175 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
69 200 of 2024 420, 120-B IPC
70 487 of 2024 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
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7273
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
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025-----Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7273
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
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025—–Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7273
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;
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025—–Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7273
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.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
Dated: 13.08.2025
8
Criminal Misc. Application No. 911 of 2025—–Anjali Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_1]
Source link