Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Ms. Priti Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Special Session Trial No.330 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.1236 of 2019, under Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Cantt. District Varanasi during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2019 against the applicants and four others and as per allegation applicants Mahendra Pratap Singh, Accountant and Ravindra Kumar, Computer Operator, along with others misappropriated the public fund of more than Rs. Three Lacs but entire allegations levelled against the applicants are totally false.

4. He further submits that after lodgement of the FIR of the present case applicants were arrested in the present matter for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 471, 468, 467, 406, 420, 419 and 409 IPC but Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.07.2020 and

24.11.2020 was pleased to enlarge them on regular bail and the copy of the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit.

5. He next submits that after investigation even charge sheet was filed 2 NABAIL No. 9682 of 2025 against the applicants for the offences in which they were enlarged on bail by this Court but thereafter investigation of the case was transferred to Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and during further investigation conducted by EOW offence under Section 13(2) PC Act has been added and thereafter when applicants applied for anticipatory bail for offence under Section 13(2) P.C.Act before the court concerned then their anticipatory bail applications have been dismissed

6. He further submits that even EOW has already submitted supplementary charge sheet without arrest of the applicants.

7. He further submits that there is no allegation that applicants did not cooperate with the further investigation.

8. He further submits that as charge sheet has been filed for offence u/s 13(2) PC Act after further investigation, therefore, after submission of charge sheet there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicants.

9. He further submits that applicants are having apprehension that if they will appear before the court concerned then they will be sent to jail and considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is not proper to send them behind the bar.

10. He further submits that applicant are not having any previous criminal history to their credit.

11. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.

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

13. FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2019 against the applicants and four others and as per allegation applicants were Accountant and Computer Operator and they along with others misappropriated public fund of Rs. Three Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty but it reflects that when during investigation conducted by the Police they were arrested for offences under Sections 3 NABAIL No. 9682 of 2025 120B, 471, 468, 467, 406, 420. 419 and 409 IPC then this Court vide orders dated 07.07.2020 and 24.11.2020 enlarged them on bail and thereafter charge sheet has been filed but after submission of the charge sheet it appears that investigation was transferred to EOW and during further investigation conducted by EOW offence under Section 13(2) PC Act has been added.

14. Record further suggests that EOW during further investigation did not arrest the applicants though applicants cooperated with the investigation and without their arrest supplementary charge sheet has been filed against the applicants for offence under Section 13(2) PC Act.

15. Considering the above facts, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that now there is no need to send the applicants behind the bar.

16. Further, considering general practice adopted by the court concerned now-a-days, apprehension of arrest raised by applicants cannot be ruled out.

17. Further, applicants are not having any previous criminal history to their credit.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

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

20. In the event of arrest of the applicants, Mahendra Pratap Singh and Ravindra Kumar 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 that:- i. that the applicants 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 4 NABAIL No. 9682 of 2025 officer or tamper with the evidence; ii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are 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 applicants.

22. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. November 21, 2025 S.A. (Sameer Jain,J.)

1. Heard Ms. Priti Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Special Session Trial No.330 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.1236 of 2019, under Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Cantt. District Varanasi during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2019 against the applicants and four others and as per allegation applicants Mahendra Pratap Singh, Accountant and Ravindra Kumar, Computer Operator, along with others misappropriated the public fund of more than Rs. Three Lacs but entire allegations levelled against the applicants are totally false.

4. He further submits that after lodgement of the FIR of the present case applicants were arrested in the present matter for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 471, 468, 467, 406, 420, 419 and 409 IPC but Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.07.2020 and

24.11.2020 was pleased to enlarge them on regular bail and the copy of the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit.

5. He next submits that after investigation even charge sheet was filed 2 NABAIL No. 9682 of 2025 against the applicants for the offences in which they were enlarged on bail by this Court but thereafter investigation of the case was transferred to Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and during further investigation conducted by EOW offence under Section 13(2) PC Act has been added and thereafter when applicants applied for anticipatory bail for offence under Section 13(2) P.C.Act before the court concerned then their anticipatory bail applications have been dismissed

6. He further submits that even EOW has already submitted supplementary charge sheet without arrest of the applicants.

7. He further submits that there is no allegation that applicants did not cooperate with the further investigation.

8. He further submits that as charge sheet has been filed for offence u/s 13(2) PC Act after further investigation, therefore, after submission of charge sheet there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicants.

9. He further submits that applicants are having apprehension that if they will appear before the court concerned then they will be sent to jail and considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is not proper to send them behind the bar.

10. He further submits that applicant are not having any previous criminal history to their credit.

11. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.

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

13. FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2019 against the applicants and four others and as per allegation applicants were Accountant and Computer Operator and they along with others misappropriated public fund of Rs. Three Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty but it reflects that when during investigation conducted by the Police they were arrested for offences under Sections 3 NABAIL No. 9682 of 2025 120B, 471, 468, 467, 406, 420. 419 and 409 IPC then this Court vide orders dated 07.07.2020 and 24.11.2020 enlarged them on bail and thereafter charge sheet has been filed but after submission of the charge sheet it appears that investigation was transferred to EOW and during further investigation conducted by EOW offence under Section 13(2) PC Act has been added.

14. Record further suggests that EOW during further investigation did not arrest the applicants though applicants cooperated with the investigation and without their arrest supplementary charge sheet has been filed against the applicants for offence under Section 13(2) PC Act.

15. Considering the above facts, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that now there is no need to send the applicants behind the bar.

16. Further, considering general practice adopted by the court concerned now-a-days, apprehension of arrest raised by applicants cannot be ruled out.

17. Further, applicants are not having any previous criminal history to their credit.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

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

20. In the event of arrest of the applicants, Mahendra Pratap Singh and Ravindra Kumar 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 that:- i. that the applicants 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 4 NABAIL No. 9682 of 2025 officer or tamper with the evidence; ii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are 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 applicants.

22. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. November 21, 2025 S.A. (Sameer Jain,J.)