Allahabad High Court

1. Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

2. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.161 of 2012, under Sections 409,418,420,467,468,471 and 120B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 against as many as 29 accused persons including the applicant and as per allegation made in the FIR applicant was the Accountant in M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited which supplied insecticide to PHC and CHC, Siddharth Nagar and however, Company of the applicant never supplied the insecticide but in spite of that bills were submitted by the Company but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but till date investigation of the case is still pending. 2 NABAIL No. 6342 of 2025

6. He further submits that however, applicant was fully cooperating with the investigation but Investigating Officer did not propose to make his arrest after the FIR but suddenly after 13 years he started making attempt for his arrest.

7. He further submits that after 14 years from the date of the FIR there is absolutely no occasion for the Investigating Officer to arrest the applicant.

8. He further submits that applicant is the responsible citizen of this country and he is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and he has been made accused in the present matter only with intention to ruin his social image.

9. He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts of the case, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

10. Per contra, AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that applicant was Accountant in M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but till date investigation of the case could not be completed.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation that either applicant was not cooperating with the investigation or he is an absconder.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

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

14. However, as per allegation applicant was the Accountant in M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited and his Company used to make supply of insecticide to the PHC and CHC, Siddharth Nagar and however, company never supplied insecticide but in spite of that on behalf of the Company bills have been submitted but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but till date investigation of the case is still pending.

15. Further, after lodgement of the FIR in the year 2012 till April, 2025 Investigating Officer of the case did not make any attempt to arrest the 3 NABAIL No. 6342 of 2025 applicant and after 13 years he started making attempt to arrest him. There is no allegation that applicant tried to evade his arrest. The Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11234 of 2025 dated 3.9.2025 2025 in para-7 observed that the fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years by itself was a good ground for the High Court to exercise its discretion and order grant of anticipatory bail.

16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

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

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

19. In the event of arrest of the applicant -Mrityunjaya Kashyap involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of the trial case 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 themselves 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 them 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 temper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicants 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; 4 NABAIL No. 6342 of 2025

20. 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.

21. It is made clear that the 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. October 8, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.)

1. Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

2. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.161 of 2012, under Sections 409,418,420,467,468,471 and 120B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 against as many as 29 accused persons including the applicant and as per allegation made in the FIR applicant was the Accountant in M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited which supplied insecticide to PHC and CHC, Siddharth Nagar and however, Company of the applicant never supplied the insecticide but in spite of that bills were submitted by the Company but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but till date investigation of the case is still pending. 2 NABAIL No. 6342 of 2025

6. He further submits that however, applicant was fully cooperating with the investigation but Investigating Officer did not propose to make his arrest after the FIR but suddenly after 13 years he started making attempt for his arrest.

7. He further submits that after 14 years from the date of the FIR there is absolutely no occasion for the Investigating Officer to arrest the applicant.

8. He further submits that applicant is the responsible citizen of this country and he is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and he has been made accused in the present matter only with intention to ruin his social image.

9. He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts of the case, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

10. Per contra, AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that applicant was Accountant in M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but till date investigation of the case could not be completed.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation that either applicant was not cooperating with the investigation or he is an absconder.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

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

14. However, as per allegation applicant was the Accountant in M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited and his Company used to make supply of insecticide to the PHC and CHC, Siddharth Nagar and however, company never supplied insecticide but in spite of that on behalf of the Company bills have been submitted but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but till date investigation of the case is still pending.

15. Further, after lodgement of the FIR in the year 2012 till April, 2025 Investigating Officer of the case did not make any attempt to arrest the 3 NABAIL No. 6342 of 2025 applicant and after 13 years he started making attempt to arrest him. There is no allegation that applicant tried to evade his arrest. The Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11234 of 2025 dated 3.9.2025 2025 in para-7 observed that the fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years by itself was a good ground for the High Court to exercise its discretion and order grant of anticipatory bail.

16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

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

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

19. In the event of arrest of the applicant -Mrityunjaya Kashyap involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of the trial case 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 themselves 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 them 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 temper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicants 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; 4 NABAIL No. 6342 of 2025

20. 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.

21. It is made clear that the 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. October 8, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.)