No. - 35333 of 2025 Om Prakash Yadav State of U.P v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 8.9.2025. It is submitted that the applicant has not committed any misappropriation of public funds and arrest order dated 18.8.2025 has been passed in favour of co-accused Vinod Kumar Srivastava in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16733 of 2025. It is further submitted that total sum of Rs.3,97,000/- is said to have been misappropriated which was to be used in Balika Samriddhi Yojana and a departmental inquiry has also been instituted which is pending but in the preliminary inquiry report it is revealed that applicant had given the aforesaid amount to co-accused Vinod Kumar Srivastava, consequently both the accused applicants, named in the FIR, have been held guilty in the preliminary inquiry. It is argued that accused applicant has no criminal antecedents. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 2 BAIL No. 35333 of 2025

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submission.

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC/209 of BNS. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default 3 BAIL No. 35333 of 2025 as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 14, 2025 RA (Santosh Rai,J.) RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad