Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Samayra Sayem @ Samayra @ Sachi Tandon vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 7 March, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SLP(CRL.) NO. 1117/2025)
SAMAYRA SAYEM @ SAMAYRA @ SACHI TANDON Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the order dated 09.09.2024
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Bench at Lucknow, in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C.No. 2078 of 2024.
Apprehending arrest in connection with crime
registered pursuant to Case Crime No. 232 of 2024
lodged with P.S. Wazirganj, District Lucknow, in
respect of the offence punishable under Sections 406,
419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, the appellant preferred an
Signature Not Verifiedapplication seeking anticipatory bail in terms of
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.03.07
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
16:39:33 IST
Reason:
1
(“the Code” for short).
Said anticipatory bail has been rejected by the
High Court vide the impugned order dated 09.09.2024.
Hence, instant appeal has been preferred.
By order dated 20.01.2025, while issuing notice,
this Court granted interim protection in favour of the
appellant.
We have heard learned counsel in support of the
appeal and learned counsel for the respondent-state.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the appellant is wife of one the partners of the firm
Yazdan Constructions. She did not have any role in the
said firm and she has also not participated in the
impugned transactions; that the complainant has simply
roped her in also merely because he found her in the
office of the firm. Learned counsel submitted that the
appellant has no role in the offences alleged against
her and hence, the impugned order may be set aside and
the relief of anticipatory bail may be granted to her.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
State with reference to his counter affidavit
contended that there is no merit in this appeal
inasmuch as the appellant herein was very much aware
2
of the fact that a flat which had already been sold to
one party was resold to the complainant, as a result
of which there was a fraud committed on the
complainant and the appellant is very much part of
this fraudulent transaction; that the investigation is
on and possibly the custodial interrogation may also
be required. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal
be dismissed.
Considering the circumstances on record, in our
view, the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed
under Section 438 of the Code.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside
the order passed by the High Court dated 09.09.2024.
We direct that in the event of arrest of the
appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the
appellant on bail subject to furnishing cash security
in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand
only) with two like sureties.
It is directed that the appellant shall extend
complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation. The
appellant shall not misuse her liberty and shall not
in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the
material on record.
3
With the aforesaid directions, the Criminal
Appeal is allowed.
………………………………………………………..,J.
( B.V. NAGARATHNA )
………………………………………………………….,J.
( SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA )
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 07, 2025
4
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.7 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1117/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-09-2024
in CRMABA No. 2078/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench]
SAMAYRA SAYEM @ SAMAYRA @ SACHI TANDON Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.
IA No. 10693/2025 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS
IA No. 10694/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 10695/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 07-03-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Pushkar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sobhit Harsh, Adv.
Ms. Nagma Bee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR
Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The Criminal Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
5
