Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45051 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 858 of 2025 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Gupta (S.K. Gupta As Per Fir) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arpit Chaudhary,Ishan Baghel,Shubham Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Shri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Hans Raj Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. This the second application seeking anticipatory bail by the applicant in Case Crime No. 0121 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar (South Commissionerate). 3. The first Application No. 17866 of 2021 was filed before this Court at Allahabad seeking anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar, which was rejected by means of an order dated 18.10.2022. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 03.09.2021 against 24 persons, including the applicant, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Project Manager, Bairaj Unit, U.P. Jal Nigam, Kanpur, alleging certain irregularities commissioned in some works conducted under J.N.N.U.R.M. programme. The F.I.R. alleges that the contract provided for laying on P.S.C. pipes, but due to non-availability of P.S.C. pipes, G.R.P. pipes were used without obtaining approval from the competent level. 4. Although, the F.I.R. mentioned Sections 409, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, the Investigating Officer had dropped the Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, the applicant had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before this Court at Allahabad for offences under the I.P.C. only. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer has again added Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and the applicant has accordingly, filed an application seeking anticipatory bail from the Special Judge (PC Act), Court No.8, Lucknow, which has been rejected by means of an order dated 10.06.2025. 5. This Court put a query to learned counsel for the applicant as to when the first anticipatory bail application has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad, how the second application will lie before this Court at Lucknow. The learned counsel for the applicant has replied that the first anticipatory bail application was filed when the matter was pending at Kanpur. Subsequently, Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act have been added, the matter stands transferred to Special Court (PC) Act at Lucknow. After this the applicant had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Special Judge at Lucknow and after rejection of the anticipatory bail by the Special Judge, he has approached this Court. 6. The Court asked the learned A.G.A. to advance his submissions on this point, but the learned A.G.A. could not advance any submission in this regard. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that another co-accused Yogendra Kumar Jain, whose first anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court sitting at Allahabad has been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 21.07.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 673 of 2025. Accordingly, I proceed to entertain the anticipatory bail application and examine its merits. 8. The F.I.R. in the present case was lodged on 03.09.2021 stating that while conducting certain works under J.N.N.U.R.M. Mission, G.R.P. pipes were used in place of P.S.C. pipes, as the firm which was required to supply P.S.C. pipes could not do so. The only allegation is that it was done without approval of the competent authority, there is no allegation that the works were not conducted or that the aforesaid irregularity has caused any financial loss. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the works in question were conducted in the year 2011 and the F.I.R. has been lodged in the year 2021. Meanwhile, the applicant has retired and he has attained the age of 65 years. Co-accused Yogendra Kumar Jain has already been granted anticipatory bail, as has been noted above. 10. Having gone through the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. 11. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed. 12. In the event of arrest/appearance of applicant- Sunil Kumar Gupta (S.K.Gupta as per FIR) 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 Arvind Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench