Allahabad High Court

2. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N.Srivastava, 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.117 of 2006, under Sections 467,468, and 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(D) Anti Corruption Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 with regard to alleged fraud and cheating allegedly committed by applicant and others in the year 1996-97.

5. He further submits that however, after investigation charge sheet was filed in the year 2010 but applicant was neither aware about the FIR of the present nor he could become aware that in the year 2010 charge sheet has been filed against him.

6. He further submits that when applicant could not appear before the court concerned then court concerned firstly issued bailable warrant against him and subsequently issued non-bailable Warrant and thereafter process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued in the year 2025.

7. He further submits that applicant is not an absconder and he never tried to evade process of law and he could not appear before the court concerned because he could not become aware about the pendency of the 2 NABAIL No. 7757 of 2025 present matter.

8. He further submits that applicant is at the verge of retirement and he is suffering with cancer and after about 20 years from the FIR there is no occasion to send him jail.

9. He further submits that applicant is having apprehension, if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.

10. He further submits that along with applicant several others were also made accused and all the accused have been released on anticipatory bail by this Court and orders of some of the co-accused have been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application. He next submits that as far as merit of the present case is concerned case of applicant is similar to them.

11.He further submits that applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits that applicant is avoiding the court proceeding since the year 2010 and when he failed to appear before the court concerned then ultimately court concerned had to issue warrant against him and thereafter process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him but he could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is at the verge of retirement and he is suffering with cancer and number of similarly placed co-accused have already been released on anticipatory bail even in the year 2025.

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

14. However, applicant was public servant and as per allegation he along with others committed fraud in conducting the land survey and it also reflects that warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.have been issued against him but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and applicant is at the verge of retirement and from the medical prescription of the applicant which has been annexed along with the instant application it reflects that he is also suffering with cancer.

15. Further, however, the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2024 Supreme Court 1600 observed that if warrants and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have 3 NABAIL No. 7757 of 2025 been issued against an accused then ordinarily such accused should not be released on anticipatory bail but the Apex Court also in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) held that in appropriate cases, in the interest of justice this Court can enlarge such person on anticipatory bail.

16. In case at hand, as it appears that applicant is suffering with cancer and FIR of the present case was lodged about 20 years before with regard to the alleged offence allegedly committed about 30 years before, in the interest of justice, in view of this Court applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

17. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage and applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

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

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

20. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Naresh Pratap Singh 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 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. (ii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; (iii) that the applicant shall not temper with the evidence during the trial; (iv) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 4 NABAIL No. 7757 of 2025 (v) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

21. 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.

22. 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. November 18, 2025 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.)

2. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N.Srivastava, 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.117 of 2006, under Sections 467,468, and 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(D) Anti Corruption Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 with regard to alleged fraud and cheating allegedly committed by applicant and others in the year 1996-97.

5. He further submits that however, after investigation charge sheet was filed in the year 2010 but applicant was neither aware about the FIR of the present nor he could become aware that in the year 2010 charge sheet has been filed against him.

6. He further submits that when applicant could not appear before the court concerned then court concerned firstly issued bailable warrant against him and subsequently issued non-bailable Warrant and thereafter process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued in the year 2025.

7. He further submits that applicant is not an absconder and he never tried to evade process of law and he could not appear before the court concerned because he could not become aware about the pendency of the 2 NABAIL No. 7757 of 2025 present matter.

8. He further submits that applicant is at the verge of retirement and he is suffering with cancer and after about 20 years from the FIR there is no occasion to send him jail.

9. He further submits that applicant is having apprehension, if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.

10. He further submits that along with applicant several others were also made accused and all the accused have been released on anticipatory bail by this Court and orders of some of the co-accused have been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application. He next submits that as far as merit of the present case is concerned case of applicant is similar to them.

11.He further submits that applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits that applicant is avoiding the court proceeding since the year 2010 and when he failed to appear before the court concerned then ultimately court concerned had to issue warrant against him and thereafter process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him but he could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is at the verge of retirement and he is suffering with cancer and number of similarly placed co-accused have already been released on anticipatory bail even in the year 2025.

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

14. However, applicant was public servant and as per allegation he along with others committed fraud in conducting the land survey and it also reflects that warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.have been issued against him but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and applicant is at the verge of retirement and from the medical prescription of the applicant which has been annexed along with the instant application it reflects that he is also suffering with cancer.

15. Further, however, the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2024 Supreme Court 1600 observed that if warrants and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have 3 NABAIL No. 7757 of 2025 been issued against an accused then ordinarily such accused should not be released on anticipatory bail but the Apex Court also in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) held that in appropriate cases, in the interest of justice this Court can enlarge such person on anticipatory bail.

16. In case at hand, as it appears that applicant is suffering with cancer and FIR of the present case was lodged about 20 years before with regard to the alleged offence allegedly committed about 30 years before, in the interest of justice, in view of this Court applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

17. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage and applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

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

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

20. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Naresh Pratap Singh 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 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. (ii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; (iii) that the applicant shall not temper with the evidence during the trial; (iv) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 4 NABAIL No. 7757 of 2025 (v) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

21. 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.

22. 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. November 18, 2025 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.)