High Court

2. Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

3. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Rai, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Navneet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhammanr Ram, learned AGA-I for the State.

4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 226 of 2025, under Sections 13(1)(a), 13(2) P.C. Act and Section 409, 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was posted as Resident Engineer in Rajkiya Nirman Nigam and he has already been retired from service in the year 2020 and FIR of the present case was lodged on 04.04.2025 against him and five others and as per FIR the construction works were being conducted by an organization for Rajkiya Nirman Nigam and on 21.12.2024 when three member inquiry committee prima facie found that the organization, who was responsible for construction committed financial irregularities then committee started making correspondence from the concerned department but in spite of repeated correspondence concerned officers did not provide any cooperation and therefore applicant and others, who were posted at that time, were made accused for misappropriation of public fund. He next submits, entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

6. He further submits, if after retirement of the applicant on the correspondence made by the committee the concerned officers did not cooperate with the enquiry then merely on this basis applicant cannot be made accused. He further submits, prima facie there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant misappropriated any fund. He further submits, even from the FIR it reflects, committee only found that the alleged organization prima facie appears to commit the irregularities.

7. He further submits, investigation of the case is pending and Investigating Officer is trying to make arrest of the applicant and applicant is not having any criminal history.

8. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail till trial.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant was posted as Resident Engineer and he was responsible for the work allegedly conducted by an organization and as from the inquiry report it reflects, the alleged organization was found guilty in committing financial irregularities, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant has not committed any offence but learned AGA could not dispute the fact that applicant has already retired from the service in the year 2020 and FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2025 and from the FIR it reflects, an enquiry was conducted by three members committee and in enquiry applicant was not held responsible.

10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case is still pending.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, as per allegation, applicant being Resident Engineer in Rajkiya Nirman Nigam committed misappropriation of pubic fund along with other accused but from the FIR it reflects, the same has been lodged after an inquiry and as per inquiry conducted by three members, it reflects, on 21.12.2024 committee prima facie found, the organization which was responsible for construction committed financial irregularities and thereafter when correspondence was made by the committee then in spite of repeated correspondence concerned officers of the department did not even respond and thereafter FIR of the present case was lodged. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that if concerned officer failed to respond to the committee then on this ground it cannot be presumed that applicant involved in the present crime cannot be ruled out.

13. Further, applicant has already retired from service in the year 2020 and FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2025.

14. Further, considering the fact that investigation of the case is still pending, the apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

18. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Om Prakash Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions:- i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

20. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 AK Pandey

2. Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

3. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Rai, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Navneet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhammanr Ram, learned AGA-I for the State.

4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 226 of 2025, under Sections 13(1)(a), 13(2) P.C. Act and Section 409, 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was posted as Resident Engineer in Rajkiya Nirman Nigam and he has already been retired from service in the year 2020 and FIR of the present case was lodged on 04.04.2025 against him and five others and as per FIR the construction works were being conducted by an organization for Rajkiya Nirman Nigam and on 21.12.2024 when three member inquiry committee prima facie found that the organization, who was responsible for construction committed financial irregularities then committee started making correspondence from the concerned department but in spite of repeated correspondence concerned officers did not provide any cooperation and therefore applicant and others, who were posted at that time, were made accused for misappropriation of public fund. He next submits, entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

6. He further submits, if after retirement of the applicant on the correspondence made by the committee the concerned officers did not cooperate with the enquiry then merely on this basis applicant cannot be made accused. He further submits, prima facie there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant misappropriated any fund. He further submits, even from the FIR it reflects, committee only found that the alleged organization prima facie appears to commit the irregularities.

7. He further submits, investigation of the case is pending and Investigating Officer is trying to make arrest of the applicant and applicant is not having any criminal history.

8. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail till trial.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant was posted as Resident Engineer and he was responsible for the work allegedly conducted by an organization and as from the inquiry report it reflects, the alleged organization was found guilty in committing financial irregularities, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant has not committed any offence but learned AGA could not dispute the fact that applicant has already retired from the service in the year 2020 and FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2025 and from the FIR it reflects, an enquiry was conducted by three members committee and in enquiry applicant was not held responsible.

10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case is still pending.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, as per allegation, applicant being Resident Engineer in Rajkiya Nirman Nigam committed misappropriation of pubic fund along with other accused but from the FIR it reflects, the same has been lodged after an inquiry and as per inquiry conducted by three members, it reflects, on 21.12.2024 committee prima facie found, the organization which was responsible for construction committed financial irregularities and thereafter when correspondence was made by the committee then in spite of repeated correspondence concerned officers of the department did not even respond and thereafter FIR of the present case was lodged. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that if concerned officer failed to respond to the committee then on this ground it cannot be presumed that applicant involved in the present crime cannot be ruled out.

13. Further, applicant has already retired from service in the year 2020 and FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2025.

14. Further, considering the fact that investigation of the case is still pending, the apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

18. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Om Prakash Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions:- i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

20. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 AK Pandey