State of U.P. and Another vs Party(s)

1. Heard Sri K.K. Rao, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Sri Santosh Pandey, learned brief holder for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 09 of 2022, under Sections 166, 420, 409, 120-B IPC & Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District U.P. Vigilance Establishment, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, technically this is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of applicant but his first application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.9.2025 by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. and when the instant second anticipatory bail application was placed before Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. then His Lordship has released the matter and thereafter matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble the Chief Justice directed that instant anticipatory bail application be placed before the Court, which is dealing with such matters and as this Bench is dealing with such matters, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application is listed today before this Bench.

4. He further submitted that as far as merit of the present case is concerned, however, as per allegation, applicant was V.D.O. and he along with others wrongly made allocation of certain houses in favour of non-eligible persons 2 NABAIL No. 6732 of 2025 but entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false.

5. He further submitted that even if act of any public servant is against the policy or rules then also it does not attract criminal provision.

6. He further submitted that during investigation, applicant though fully cooperated with the investigation but Investigating Officer did not propose to make his arrest and now charge sheet has been filed. He further submitted that after submission of charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary.

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

8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. No.2 opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant was the person, who intentionally wrongly made allocation of houses to the non-eligible persons. They further submitted that even after submission of charge sheet, on 19.07.2025 warrants have been issued against the applicant and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

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

11. However, technically this is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of applicant but his first application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.9.2025 by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. and when the instant second anticipatory bail application was placed before Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. then Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. has released the matter and thereafter matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble the Chief Justice directed that instant anticipatory bail application be placed before the Court, which is dealing with such matters and as this Bench is dealing with such matters, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application is listed today before this Bench.

12. From the record, it reflect, however, as per allegation, being V.D.O. applicant and others wrongly made allocation of certain houses to non- eligible persons but it reflects, during investigation, applicant has not been arrested though, he fully cooperated with the investigation. 3 NABAIL No. 6732 of 2025

13. Further, now charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after submission of charge sheet custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, cannot be ruled out.

14. Further, even apprehension of arrest raised by applicant also cannot be completely ruled out in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 SCC Online SC 299.

15. Further, in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in cases of Amanpreet Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 13 SCC 764 and Mahdoom Bava(supra) after submission of charge sheet there is no occasion to send the applicant behind the bar, if during investigation he was not arrested.

16. Further, however, it reflects, on 19.07.2025 warrants have been issued against the applicant but even in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay(supra), this Court even after issuance of warrants can enlarge the accused on anticipatory bail in appropriate cases.

17. Considering the fact that during investigation, applicant was not arrested though, he fully cooperated with the investigation, in view of this Court, in the interest of justice, merely on the basis that after submission of charge sheet recently warrants have been issued against him, his anticipatory bail application cannot be dismissed. Further, law is settled, there is no absolute rule that if warrants have been issued against an accused then he cannot be released on anticipatory bail in any case.

18. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

19. 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.

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

21. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Nirankar Mishra 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 4 NABAIL No. 6732 of 2025 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;

22. 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.

23. 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 25, 2025 KK Patel (Sameer Jain,J.) KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri K.K. Rao, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Sri Santosh Pandey, learned brief holder for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 09 of 2022, under Sections 166, 420, 409, 120-B IPC & Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Prayagraj Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District U.P. Vigilance Establishment, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, technically this is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of applicant but his first application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.9.2025 by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. and when the instant second anticipatory bail application was placed before Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. then His Lordship has released the matter and thereafter matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble the Chief Justice directed that instant anticipatory bail application be placed before the Court, which is dealing with such matters and as this Bench is dealing with such matters, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application is listed today before this Bench.

4. He further submitted that as far as merit of the present case is concerned, however, as per allegation, applicant was V.D.O. and he along with others wrongly made allocation of certain houses in favour of non-eligible persons 2 NABAIL No. 6732 of 2025 but entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false.

5. He further submitted that even if act of any public servant is against the policy or rules then also it does not attract criminal provision.

6. He further submitted that during investigation, applicant though fully cooperated with the investigation but Investigating Officer did not propose to make his arrest and now charge sheet has been filed. He further submitted that after submission of charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary.

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

8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. No.2 opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant was the person, who intentionally wrongly made allocation of houses to the non-eligible persons. They further submitted that even after submission of charge sheet, on 19.07.2025 warrants have been issued against the applicant and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

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

11. However, technically this is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of applicant but his first application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.9.2025 by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. and when the instant second anticipatory bail application was placed before Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. then Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. has released the matter and thereafter matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble the Chief Justice directed that instant anticipatory bail application be placed before the Court, which is dealing with such matters and as this Bench is dealing with such matters, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application is listed today before this Bench.

12. From the record, it reflect, however, as per allegation, being V.D.O. applicant and others wrongly made allocation of certain houses to non- eligible persons but it reflects, during investigation, applicant has not been arrested though, he fully cooperated with the investigation. 3 NABAIL No. 6732 of 2025

13. Further, now charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after submission of charge sheet custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, cannot be ruled out.

14. Further, even apprehension of arrest raised by applicant also cannot be completely ruled out in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 SCC Online SC 299.

15. Further, in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in cases of Amanpreet Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 13 SCC 764 and Mahdoom Bava(supra) after submission of charge sheet there is no occasion to send the applicant behind the bar, if during investigation he was not arrested.

16. Further, however, it reflects, on 19.07.2025 warrants have been issued against the applicant but even in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay(supra), this Court even after issuance of warrants can enlarge the accused on anticipatory bail in appropriate cases.

17. Considering the fact that during investigation, applicant was not arrested though, he fully cooperated with the investigation, in view of this Court, in the interest of justice, merely on the basis that after submission of charge sheet recently warrants have been issued against him, his anticipatory bail application cannot be dismissed. Further, law is settled, there is no absolute rule that if warrants have been issued against an accused then he cannot be released on anticipatory bail in any case.

18. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

19. 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.

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

21. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Nirankar Mishra 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 4 NABAIL No. 6732 of 2025 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;

22. 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.

23. 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 25, 2025 KK Patel (Sameer Jain,J.) KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad