High Court · 2025

submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2007 but applicant was not named in the FIR.

4. He further submitted that as per allegation made in the FIR, nominated accused persons misappropriated public fund as they did not conclude the work allotted to them.

5. He further submitted that however, during investigation applicant, who was B.D.O. at that time, was also made accused but he could not become aware that he has been made accused in the present matter and being responsible public servant, he never tried to evade his arrest during investigation. He next submits, Investigating Officer did not make any attempt either to arrest the applicant or interrogate him.

6. He further submitted that charge-sheet in the present matter was filed against the applicant in the year 2008 and when he came to know about submission of the charge-sheet then he approached this Court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8575 of 2017 and however, vide order dated 23.03.2017 this Court refused to quash the proceeding, charge-sheet and cognizance order and directed the trial court if applicant appears before the trial court then his bail application shall be considered in accordance with law but unfortunately as applicant has been transferred to other place, therefore, pursuant to the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by this Court, he could not appear before the trial court for bail and when he came to know that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against him then he filed anticipatory bail application.

7. He further submitted that however, prima facie from the record of the case, it reflects, applicant is trying to evade his arrest and he is not appearing before the trial court but being responsible public servant, he cannot even think to do so. He further submitted that only under compelling circumstances, he earlier could not appear before the court concerned.

8. He further submitted that from the entire material available on record, which was collected by Investigating Officer during investigation no offence against the applicant is made out.

9. He further submitted that now applicant has been promoted to Class-1 post and if he is not enlarged on anticipatory bail then he will suffer irreparable loss and his social image will also be ruined.

10. He further submitted that therefore, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that admittedly applicant is public servant. He further submits, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2007 and charge-sheet against him has already been filed in the year 2008 but neither during investigation nor after submission of the charge-sheet, in spite of repeated summons and warrants, he did not appear before the court concerned.

12. He further submitted that it cannot be said that applicant was not aware about the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and warrants have been issued against him as in the year 2017 he approached this Court in an Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and in the Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., he challenged the charge-sheet as well as cognizance order but this Court after considering entire facts of the case refused to quash the proceeding, charge-sheet and summoning order and directed him to appear before the court concerned and get regular bail but he did not comply the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by this Court and in the year 2025 after eight years, he filed the instant anticipatory bail application only because court concerned had to issue process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the conduct of the applicant, he should not be released on anticipatory bail.

13. He further submitted that even as far as merit of the present case is concerned, allegation against the applicant is quite serious and being public servant, he misused his position and misappropriated public fund and during investigation when Investigating Officer collected cogent evidence against him then he made him accused and submitted charge-sheet against him. He further submitted that even on merit applicant does not deserve anticipatory bail.

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

15. From the record, it reflects FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2007 with the allegation that nominated accused persons misappropriated public fund and however, applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation, Investigating Officer found that being B.D.O. applicant also involved in commission of present offence along with others, therefore, he made him accused in the present matter.

16. From the record, it reflects, applicant did not cooperate with the investigation and ultimately without interrogating him charge- sheet had to file by the Investigating Officer in the year 2008.

17. Record also suggests that after submission of charge-sheet when summons were issued to the applicant then also he did not turn up before the court concerned and filed Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court in the year 2017 i.e. after nine years from the date of charge sheet challenging the proceeding pending against him, charge-sheet and cognizance order. It appears, since the year 2012 continuously N.B.Ws. were being issued against him.

18. Record also suggests that this Court on 23.03.2017 refused the prayer for quashing the proceeding, charge-sheet and cognizance order and directed that if applicant appear before the court concerned then his bail application shall be considered in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as in judgement passed by Hon'ble The Apex Court in case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) but it reflects, applicant did not even comply with the order dated 23.03. 2017 passed by this Court and when applicant did not appear before the trial court then ultimately court concerned had to issue process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him on 02.02.2023 and only thereafter applicant filed anticipatory bail application.

19. The above facts clearly suggest that prima facie applicant appears to an absconder and he not only did not cooperate during investigation but he also willfully avoided the courts proceeding and in spite of NBWs and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., did not appear before the court concerned and evaded his arrest for more than a decade. The Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 categorically observed that such an accused should not be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The observation made by Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay(supra) has been reiterated by The Apex Court in case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Aditya Sarda (2025)SCC OnLine SC

20. Therefore, considering the conduct of the applicant and facts of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.

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

22. It is made clear that observations made in the instant anticipatory bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2007 but applicant was not named in the FIR.

4. He further submitted that as per allegation made in the FIR, nominated accused persons misappropriated public fund as they did not conclude the work allotted to them.

5. He further submitted that however, during investigation applicant, who was B.D.O. at that time, was also made accused but he could not become aware that he has been made accused in the present matter and being responsible public servant, he never tried to evade his arrest during investigation. He next submits, Investigating Officer did not make any attempt either to arrest the applicant or interrogate him.

6. He further submitted that charge-sheet in the present matter was filed against the applicant in the year 2008 and when he came to know about submission of the charge-sheet then he approached this Court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8575 of 2017 and however, vide order dated 23.03.2017 this Court refused to quash the proceeding, charge-sheet and cognizance order and directed the trial court if applicant appears before the trial court then his bail application shall be considered in accordance with law but unfortunately as applicant has been transferred to other place, therefore, pursuant to the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by this Court, he could not appear before the trial court for bail and when he came to know that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against him then he filed anticipatory bail application.

7. He further submitted that however, prima facie from the record of the case, it reflects, applicant is trying to evade his arrest and he is not appearing before the trial court but being responsible public servant, he cannot even think to do so. He further submitted that only under compelling circumstances, he earlier could not appear before the court concerned.

8. He further submitted that from the entire material available on record, which was collected by Investigating Officer during investigation no offence against the applicant is made out.

9. He further submitted that now applicant has been promoted to Class-1 post and if he is not enlarged on anticipatory bail then he will suffer irreparable loss and his social image will also be ruined.

10. He further submitted that therefore, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that admittedly applicant is public servant. He further submits, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2007 and charge-sheet against him has already been filed in the year 2008 but neither during investigation nor after submission of the charge-sheet, in spite of repeated summons and warrants, he did not appear before the court concerned.

12. He further submitted that it cannot be said that applicant was not aware about the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and warrants have been issued against him as in the year 2017 he approached this Court in an Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and in the Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., he challenged the charge-sheet as well as cognizance order but this Court after considering entire facts of the case refused to quash the proceeding, charge-sheet and summoning order and directed him to appear before the court concerned and get regular bail but he did not comply the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by this Court and in the year 2025 after eight years, he filed the instant anticipatory bail application only because court concerned had to issue process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the conduct of the applicant, he should not be released on anticipatory bail.

13. He further submitted that even as far as merit of the present case is concerned, allegation against the applicant is quite serious and being public servant, he misused his position and misappropriated public fund and during investigation when Investigating Officer collected cogent evidence against him then he made him accused and submitted charge-sheet against him. He further submitted that even on merit applicant does not deserve anticipatory bail.

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

15. From the record, it reflects FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2007 with the allegation that nominated accused persons misappropriated public fund and however, applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation, Investigating Officer found that being B.D.O. applicant also involved in commission of present offence along with others, therefore, he made him accused in the present matter.

16. From the record, it reflects, applicant did not cooperate with the investigation and ultimately without interrogating him charge- sheet had to file by the Investigating Officer in the year 2008.

17. Record also suggests that after submission of charge-sheet when summons were issued to the applicant then also he did not turn up before the court concerned and filed Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court in the year 2017 i.e. after nine years from the date of charge sheet challenging the proceeding pending against him, charge-sheet and cognizance order. It appears, since the year 2012 continuously N.B.Ws. were being issued against him.

18. Record also suggests that this Court on 23.03.2017 refused the prayer for quashing the proceeding, charge-sheet and cognizance order and directed that if applicant appear before the court concerned then his bail application shall be considered in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as in judgement passed by Hon'ble The Apex Court in case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) but it reflects, applicant did not even comply with the order dated 23.03. 2017 passed by this Court and when applicant did not appear before the trial court then ultimately court concerned had to issue process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him on 02.02.2023 and only thereafter applicant filed anticipatory bail application.

19. The above facts clearly suggest that prima facie applicant appears to an absconder and he not only did not cooperate during investigation but he also willfully avoided the courts proceeding and in spite of NBWs and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., did not appear before the court concerned and evaded his arrest for more than a decade. The Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 categorically observed that such an accused should not be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The observation made by Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay(supra) has been reiterated by The Apex Court in case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Aditya Sarda (2025)SCC OnLine SC

20. Therefore, considering the conduct of the applicant and facts of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.

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

22. It is made clear that observations made in the instant anticipatory bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad