State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 66 of 2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120-B/34 IPC & 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 against applicant and more than 70 persons with general allegation that they misappropriated government fund related to Gramin Rojgar Yojana but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that at the time of lodgment of the FIR, applicant was C.D.O. and except the general and omnibus allegation, there is no cogent evidence against applicant with regard to misappropriation of public fund.

6. He further submitted that after considering entire facts of the case in detail, during investigation Division Bench of this Court has stayed the arrest of the applicant vide Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27813 of 2015 and order passed by Division Bench of this Court has been annexed at page no. 2 ABAIL No. 8931 of 2023 41 of the paper book. He further submitted that pursuant to the order dated

04.12.2015 passed by Division Bench of this Court during investigation applicant has not been arrested and there is no allegation that he did not cooperate with the investigation.

7. He further submitted that after submission of the charge sheet, when applicant filed the instant anticipatory bail application then co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 09.08.2023 directed that no coercive measure shall be taken against him.

8. He further submitted that applicant is continuously appearing before the trial court and he is having apprehension, if instant anticipatory bail applicant is not allowed and if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.

9. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 30 other cases but in all the cases with similar allegation being C.D.O. he has been made accused in the year 2006 and his criminal history has been explained in the instant application.

10. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

12. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. As per allegation, applicant was C.D.O. and he misused his position and he along with other accused persons misappropriated the public fund but it reflect, on the basis of general and omnibus allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter along with as many as 75 others.

14. Further, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and during investigation, arrest of the applicant has been stayed by Division Bench of this Court.

15. Further, after submission of the charge sheet, when applicant filed the instant anticipatory bail application then co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

09.08.2023 directed that no coercive measure shall be taken against him, 3 ABAIL No. 8931 of 2023 therefore, it reflects, since the lodgement of the FIR till date applicant is duly protected and there is no allegation that he misused the liberty granted to him.

16. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 30 other cases but in all the cases with similar allegation being C.D.O. he has been made accused in the year 2006 and his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application.

17. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be completely ruled out.

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 conclusion of trial.

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 applicant, Ahswani Kumar Srivastava 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 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 tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; 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. 4 ABAIL No. 8931 of 2023

22. 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. September 16, 2025 KK Patel (Sameer Jain,J.) KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 66 of 2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120-B/34 IPC & 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 against applicant and more than 70 persons with general allegation that they misappropriated government fund related to Gramin Rojgar Yojana but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that at the time of lodgment of the FIR, applicant was C.D.O. and except the general and omnibus allegation, there is no cogent evidence against applicant with regard to misappropriation of public fund.

6. He further submitted that after considering entire facts of the case in detail, during investigation Division Bench of this Court has stayed the arrest of the applicant vide Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27813 of 2015 and order passed by Division Bench of this Court has been annexed at page no. 2 ABAIL No. 8931 of 2023 41 of the paper book. He further submitted that pursuant to the order dated

04.12.2015 passed by Division Bench of this Court during investigation applicant has not been arrested and there is no allegation that he did not cooperate with the investigation.

7. He further submitted that after submission of the charge sheet, when applicant filed the instant anticipatory bail application then co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 09.08.2023 directed that no coercive measure shall be taken against him.

8. He further submitted that applicant is continuously appearing before the trial court and he is having apprehension, if instant anticipatory bail applicant is not allowed and if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.

9. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 30 other cases but in all the cases with similar allegation being C.D.O. he has been made accused in the year 2006 and his criminal history has been explained in the instant application.

10. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

12. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. As per allegation, applicant was C.D.O. and he misused his position and he along with other accused persons misappropriated the public fund but it reflect, on the basis of general and omnibus allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter along with as many as 75 others.

14. Further, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and during investigation, arrest of the applicant has been stayed by Division Bench of this Court.

15. Further, after submission of the charge sheet, when applicant filed the instant anticipatory bail application then co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

09.08.2023 directed that no coercive measure shall be taken against him, 3 ABAIL No. 8931 of 2023 therefore, it reflects, since the lodgement of the FIR till date applicant is duly protected and there is no allegation that he misused the liberty granted to him.

16. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 30 other cases but in all the cases with similar allegation being C.D.O. he has been made accused in the year 2006 and his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application.

17. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be completely ruled out.

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 conclusion of trial.

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 applicant, Ahswani Kumar Srivastava 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 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 tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; 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. 4 ABAIL No. 8931 of 2023

22. 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. September 16, 2025 KK Patel (Sameer Jain,J.) KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad