Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44993 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 954 of 2025 Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakshit Raj Singh,Ayush Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Satendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.480 of 2024 under Sections 316(5) of BNS registered at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Balrampur. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the Assistant Development Officer on 13.09.2024 against four persons, including the applicant, stating that in furtherance of a complaint addressed through Divisional Commissioner, Devipatan Division, an inquiry was conducted regarding certain works carried out during the year 2021-22 and 2023-24 which revealed that the the Panchayat Bhawan was not constructed as per the prescribed standards. The applicant was working as a Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department and he had carried out the technical measurements in the constructions. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent person having no criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against the applicant for the alleged illegality committed in performant of the official duty of the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had prepared the initial estimate of the construction and he had not conducted the final measurements upon completion of the project. 9. Learned AGA opposed the bail application and submitted that in performance of his public duties, the applicant has participated in commission of offence is construction of a sub- standard public building. The offence is heinous and serious in nature and he should not be granted anticipatory bail 10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that there is no allegation that the applicant had conducted the final measurement after construction of the project; although the allegations are regarding commission of certain misconduct in performance of official duties of the applicant, no disciplinary proceedings has been instituted against him; the applicant has no criminal history and being in government employment, there appears to be no reasonable apprehension of the applicant's absconding from the proceedings of trial, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 11. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Sushil Kumar before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (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. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench