Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48474 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 266 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Rashid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Shri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 24.03.2025: "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.0125 of 2025 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Lotwali Nagar, District Barabanki. 3. As per contents of First Information Report, the applicant allegedly mislead the informant in the year 2019 for procuring a Government job, on which pretext he took an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from the informant whereafter it came to his knowledge that the I.D. Card of the Food Corporation of India in fact was a fabricated document and despite promise, the applicant had been provided only private employment by the informant who has thereafter refused to pay back amount advanced to him. 4. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that even otherwise a criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely civil dispute. It is denied that the applicant ever took any money from the informant for purposes of providing Government employment. It is also submitted that there is no cogent explanation indicated for lodging the FIR of about five years. It is submitted that investigation in the said matter is still ongoing. 5. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained in paragraph-12 of the affidavit filed in support of application. 6. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail application on the basis of instructions receipt but does not dispute the fact that previous criminal history of one case has already been explained in paragraph-12 of the affidavit. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter is still ongoing. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage, it appears that there is no cogent explanation of delay of five years in lodging the FIR. Investigation is still on going. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Mohd. Rashid shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest 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. 9. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. 10. List this case on 17.04.2025 alongwith service report. 11. Objections may be filed in the meantime." 3. After the aforesaid interim order was passed, the State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copies of the materials collected during the investigation. 4. On 21.05.2025, the learned A.G.A. was granted time to seek latest instructions regarding the co-operation of the applicant in the investigation and as per the instructions, the learned A.G.A. has informed the Court that the applicant has already appeared before the Investigating Officer and has got his statement recorded on 05.05.2025. 5. The office has reported that notice sent to the opposite party No.2 stands served on 09.04.2025 but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No.2 to oppose the anticipatory bail application. 6. The learned A.G.A. does not allege violation of any condition of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 7. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is nothing which may persuade this Court from taking a different view than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 24.03.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench