Mudit Nagar And Another v. Party

1. Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State, apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

2. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State.

3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.161 of 2012, under Sections 409,418,420,467,468,471 and 120B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 against as many as 29 accused persons including the applicants and as per allegation made in the FIR applicant no.1 was the Manager while applicant no.2 was the Director in M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited which supplied insecticide to PHC and CHC, Siddharth Nagar and however, Company of the applicants never supplied the insecticide but in spite of that bills were submitted by the Company but entire allegations levelled against the applicants are totally false.

5. He further submits that even FIR of the present case was lodged in the 2 NABAIL No. 7282 of 2025 year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but till date investigation of the case is still pending.

6. He further submits that however, applicants were fully cooperating with the investigation but Investigating Officer did not propose to make their arrest after the FIR but suddenly after 13 years in the months of April, 2025 and June, 2025 he started making attempt for their arrest and a specific averment in this regard has been made in paragraph no.22 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant anticipatory bail application.

7. He further submits that after 14 years from the date of the FIR there is absolutely no occasion for the Investigating Officer to arrest the applicants.

8. He further submits that applicants are the responsible citizen of this country and they are not having any previous criminal history to their credit and they have been made accused in the present matter only with intention to ruin their social image.

9. He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts of the case, applicants should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

10. Per contra, AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submtis that applicants were having key position in M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but investigation of the case could not be completed till date.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation that applicants were either not cooperating with the investigation or they are absconders.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that applicants are not having any previous criminal history to their credit.

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

14. However, as per allegation applicant no.1 was the Manager while applicant no.2 was the Director of M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited 3 NABAIL No. 7282 of 2025 and their Company used to make supply of insecticide to the PHC and CHC, Siddharth Nagar and however, company never supplied insecticide but in spite of that on behalf of the Company bills have been submitted but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but till date investigation of the case is still pending.

15. Further, as per avernment made in para-22 of the affidavit filed in support of instant application after lodgement of the FIR in the year 2012 till April, 2025 Investigating Officer of the case did not make any attempt to arrest the applicants and after 13 years he started making attempt to arrest them. Considering the fact that there is no allegation that applicants tried to evade their arrest, this averment cannot be brushed aside. The Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11234 of 2025 dated 3.9.2025 2025 in para-7 observed that the fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years by itself was a good ground for the High Court to exercise its discretion and order grant of anticipatory bail.

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

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

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

19. In the event of arrest of the applicants-Mudit Nagar and Rajnish Sethi 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 4 NABAIL No. 7282 of 2025 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not temper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

20. 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.

21. It is made clear that the 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. September 8, 2025 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.) SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State, apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

2. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State.

3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.161 of 2012, under Sections 409,418,420,467,468,471 and 120B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 against as many as 29 accused persons including the applicants and as per allegation made in the FIR applicant no.1 was the Manager while applicant no.2 was the Director in M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited which supplied insecticide to PHC and CHC, Siddharth Nagar and however, Company of the applicants never supplied the insecticide but in spite of that bills were submitted by the Company but entire allegations levelled against the applicants are totally false.

5. He further submits that even FIR of the present case was lodged in the 2 NABAIL No. 7282 of 2025 year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but till date investigation of the case is still pending.

6. He further submits that however, applicants were fully cooperating with the investigation but Investigating Officer did not propose to make their arrest after the FIR but suddenly after 13 years in the months of April, 2025 and June, 2025 he started making attempt for their arrest and a specific averment in this regard has been made in paragraph no.22 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant anticipatory bail application.

7. He further submits that after 14 years from the date of the FIR there is absolutely no occasion for the Investigating Officer to arrest the applicants.

8. He further submits that applicants are the responsible citizen of this country and they are not having any previous criminal history to their credit and they have been made accused in the present matter only with intention to ruin their social image.

9. He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts of the case, applicants should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

10. Per contra, AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submtis that applicants were having key position in M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but investigation of the case could not be completed till date.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation that applicants were either not cooperating with the investigation or they are absconders.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that applicants are not having any previous criminal history to their credit.

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

14. However, as per allegation applicant no.1 was the Manager while applicant no.2 was the Director of M/S Rako Agrochem Private Limited 3 NABAIL No. 7282 of 2025 and their Company used to make supply of insecticide to the PHC and CHC, Siddharth Nagar and however, company never supplied insecticide but in spite of that on behalf of the Company bills have been submitted but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2012 and since then 13 years have been passed but till date investigation of the case is still pending.

15. Further, as per avernment made in para-22 of the affidavit filed in support of instant application after lodgement of the FIR in the year 2012 till April, 2025 Investigating Officer of the case did not make any attempt to arrest the applicants and after 13 years he started making attempt to arrest them. Considering the fact that there is no allegation that applicants tried to evade their arrest, this averment cannot be brushed aside. The Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11234 of 2025 dated 3.9.2025 2025 in para-7 observed that the fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years by itself was a good ground for the High Court to exercise its discretion and order grant of anticipatory bail.

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

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

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

19. In the event of arrest of the applicants-Mudit Nagar and Rajnish Sethi 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 4 NABAIL No. 7282 of 2025 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not temper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

20. 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.

21. It is made clear that the 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. September 8, 2025 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.) SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad