High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant- Akhila Nand @ Akhila Nand Maurya on anticipatory bail in Case Crime (FIR) No. 256 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Sohra Mau, District Unnao. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 13.01.2025 following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "[C.M.A. No. 1 of 2025: Application for Interim Anticipatory Bail Application]

1. Heard Sri Piyush Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash, and Sri Arvind Kumar who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant/ complainant. The same is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./Case Crime No.256 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Sohra Mau, District- Unnao.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. It is also stated that one co-accused namely Rajneesh Singh, who was serving as Deputy Account Officer in the Saraswati Medical College, Unnao, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. - 2801 of 2024. The order reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.256 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Sohra Mau, District Unnao. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He submits that in fact, the amount, which is said to be misappropriated while narrating the F.I.R. is incorrect as once this matter came before the college administration then an enquiry committee was constituted which submitted its report on 1.12.2022 and the same is appended at page 71 of the application and subsequently, the enquiry committee was also constituted which submitted its report on 4.12.2022 which report is appended at page 77 of the application and it was found that due to some inadvertence, the amount was deposited in other account and there was no any mens rea to commit any offence as lodged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the applicant was posted as Deputy Account Officer in the college in question and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been mentioned in para 38 of the bail application and he has co-operated with the investigation proceedings and he undertakes that the will only abscond. He added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he has acute apprehension of being arrested by the police, as such, he may be granted anticipatory bail which he will not misuse. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is sufficient proof that he has committed the offence, as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court find it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail. Till the next date of listing, the present applicant Rajneesh Singh shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case charge sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. List/put up this matter in fourth week of January 2025. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State shall file the counter affidavit."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is serving on the post of Financial Officer, therefore, he is also entitled for similar benefit. He further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the investigation proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if so granted by this Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the aforesaid prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court.

6. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue and considering the fact that co-accused namely Rajneesh Singh, who was serving as Deputy Account Officer in the Saraswati Medical College, Unnao, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. - 2801 of 2024 (Rajneesh Singh Vs. State of U.P.); the undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, I find it appropriate that liberty of the applicant may also be protected.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Akhila Nand @ Akhila Nand Maurya shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till the next date of listing on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/court concerned/arresting authority with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall appear before the investigating officer and trial court on each date fixed unless her personal presence is exempted; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; (vi) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

8. This anticipatory bail application is disposed of in view of the above terms.

9. List and connect this case along with Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. - 2801 of 2024 (Rajneesh Singh Vs. State of U.P.).

10. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed by the State." From perusal of the order dated 13.01.2025 it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Akhila Nand @ Akhila Nand Maurya till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Praveen PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant- Akhila Nand @ Akhila Nand Maurya on anticipatory bail in Case Crime (FIR) No. 256 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Sohra Mau, District Unnao. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 13.01.2025 following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "[C.M.A. No. 1 of 2025: Application for Interim Anticipatory Bail Application]

1. Heard Sri Piyush Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash, and Sri Arvind Kumar who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant/ complainant. The same is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./Case Crime No.256 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Sohra Mau, District- Unnao.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. It is also stated that one co-accused namely Rajneesh Singh, who was serving as Deputy Account Officer in the Saraswati Medical College, Unnao, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. - 2801 of 2024. The order reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.256 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Sohra Mau, District Unnao. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He submits that in fact, the amount, which is said to be misappropriated while narrating the F.I.R. is incorrect as once this matter came before the college administration then an enquiry committee was constituted which submitted its report on 1.12.2022 and the same is appended at page 71 of the application and subsequently, the enquiry committee was also constituted which submitted its report on 4.12.2022 which report is appended at page 77 of the application and it was found that due to some inadvertence, the amount was deposited in other account and there was no any mens rea to commit any offence as lodged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the applicant was posted as Deputy Account Officer in the college in question and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been mentioned in para 38 of the bail application and he has co-operated with the investigation proceedings and he undertakes that the will only abscond. He added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he has acute apprehension of being arrested by the police, as such, he may be granted anticipatory bail which he will not misuse. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is sufficient proof that he has committed the offence, as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court find it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail. Till the next date of listing, the present applicant Rajneesh Singh shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case charge sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. List/put up this matter in fourth week of January 2025. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State shall file the counter affidavit."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is serving on the post of Financial Officer, therefore, he is also entitled for similar benefit. He further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the investigation proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if so granted by this Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the aforesaid prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court.

6. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue and considering the fact that co-accused namely Rajneesh Singh, who was serving as Deputy Account Officer in the Saraswati Medical College, Unnao, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. - 2801 of 2024 (Rajneesh Singh Vs. State of U.P.); the undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, I find it appropriate that liberty of the applicant may also be protected.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Akhila Nand @ Akhila Nand Maurya shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till the next date of listing on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/court concerned/arresting authority with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall appear before the investigating officer and trial court on each date fixed unless her personal presence is exempted; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; (vi) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

8. This anticipatory bail application is disposed of in view of the above terms.

9. List and connect this case along with Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. - 2801 of 2024 (Rajneesh Singh Vs. State of U.P.).

10. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed by the State." From perusal of the order dated 13.01.2025 it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Akhila Nand @ Akhila Nand Maurya till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Praveen PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench