Nitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others. It is submitted that the said petitio

Applicant :- Aaka Raza Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhika Singh,Hanumant Lal Srivastava,Rishabh Raj,Vedant Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Ms Radhika Singh along with Mr Vedant Bhargava, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. As per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 29.04.2025, opposite party no.2 has been served personally but has not put in appearance.

3. Counter affidavit on behalf of State filed today is taken on record.

4. Earlier vide order dated 11.04.2025, the interim anticipatory had been granted to the applicant, which is as follows:- "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0005 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant along with co-accused allegedly obtained employment on the basis of fabricated 'O' Level certificate issued by National Institute of Electronic and Information Technology.

4. It is submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the charges levelled against him and that in pursuance of such a preliminary finding recorded with regard to fabrication of said 'O' Level certificate, services of the applicant along with other such appointees were cancelled leading to filing Writ-A No.590 of 2022 by the applicant which was consolidated with Writ-A No.586 of 2022, Nitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others. It is submitted that the said petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 14.11.2022 remitting the matter to the concerned authority to make a fresh determination with regard to establishing that petitioners therein never participated in the 'O' Level examination and that the certificates were never issued by them.

5. It is submitted that the present FIR has been lodged subsequent to the said judgment of this Court without indicating any such examination or investigation having been subsequently carried out. It is further submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history but has grave apprehension of being arrested.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that FIR has been lodged in fact in pursuance of directions issued by this Court when the applicant was unable to furnish any plausible explanation with regard to authenticity of the documents. It is however admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the aspect of application of 'O' Level certificate submitted allegedly by the applicant for the purposes of obtaining employment was subject matter of writ petition filed before this Court which allowed as indicated hereinabove. The FIR does not indicate any subsequent efforts for establishing genuineness of the said certificate in pursuance of directions issued by this Court. Admittedly the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting interim anticipatory bail.

8. Let the accused-applicant Aaka Raza as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

9. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in theaforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

10. Issue notice to respondent no.2.

11. List this case on 30.04.2025 as fresh along with service report.

12. Objections may be filed in the meantime."

5. In pursuance thereof, learned A.G.A has submitted that investigation is still ongoing and there is nothing adverse that the applicant is not cooperating.

6. There does not appear to be any situational difference from the time when the interim anticipatory bail had been granted to applicant. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. The interim anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 11.04.2025 is hereby made absolute subject to following conditions.

7. Considering the aforesaid, interim anticipatory bail granted earlier to applicant is made absolute till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C./193 BNSS with the following condition: (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.

8. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Renu/- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Aaka Raza Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhika Singh,Hanumant Lal Srivastava,Rishabh Raj,Vedant Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Ms Radhika Singh along with Mr Vedant Bhargava, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. As per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 29.04.2025, opposite party no.2 has been served personally but has not put in appearance.

3. Counter affidavit on behalf of State filed today is taken on record.

4. Earlier vide order dated 11.04.2025, the interim anticipatory had been granted to the applicant, which is as follows:- "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0005 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant along with co-accused allegedly obtained employment on the basis of fabricated 'O' Level certificate issued by National Institute of Electronic and Information Technology.

4. It is submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the charges levelled against him and that in pursuance of such a preliminary finding recorded with regard to fabrication of said 'O' Level certificate, services of the applicant along with other such appointees were cancelled leading to filing Writ-A No.590 of 2022 by the applicant which was consolidated with Writ-A No.586 of 2022, Nitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others. It is submitted that the said petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 14.11.2022 remitting the matter to the concerned authority to make a fresh determination with regard to establishing that petitioners therein never participated in the 'O' Level examination and that the certificates were never issued by them.

5. It is submitted that the present FIR has been lodged subsequent to the said judgment of this Court without indicating any such examination or investigation having been subsequently carried out. It is further submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history but has grave apprehension of being arrested.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that FIR has been lodged in fact in pursuance of directions issued by this Court when the applicant was unable to furnish any plausible explanation with regard to authenticity of the documents. It is however admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the aspect of application of 'O' Level certificate submitted allegedly by the applicant for the purposes of obtaining employment was subject matter of writ petition filed before this Court which allowed as indicated hereinabove. The FIR does not indicate any subsequent efforts for establishing genuineness of the said certificate in pursuance of directions issued by this Court. Admittedly the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting interim anticipatory bail.

8. Let the accused-applicant Aaka Raza as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

9. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in theaforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

10. Issue notice to respondent no.2.

11. List this case on 30.04.2025 as fresh along with service report.

12. Objections may be filed in the meantime."

5. In pursuance thereof, learned A.G.A has submitted that investigation is still ongoing and there is nothing adverse that the applicant is not cooperating.

6. There does not appear to be any situational difference from the time when the interim anticipatory bail had been granted to applicant. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. The interim anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 11.04.2025 is hereby made absolute subject to following conditions.

7. Considering the aforesaid, interim anticipatory bail granted earlier to applicant is made absolute till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C./193 BNSS with the following condition: (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.

8. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Renu/- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench