HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 933 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Babu, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ayush Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Satyendra Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Abhishek Tiwari, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the victim of the alleged offence and filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.407 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the applicant himself on 07.12.2021 against one Rahul Kumar Pandey stating that the named accused Rahul Kumar Pandey had made interpolation in the revenue records after taking the record for inspection from the complainant Lekhpal. During investigation it came to light that the named accused has committed the offence under a conspiracy in which the applicant-Lekhpal was also involved. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent, he has no criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The named accused Rahul Kumar Pandey was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 22.04.2024, passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.837 of 2024 by a coordinate Bench of this Court and that order has been confirmed and the anticipatory bail application has been allowed by means of an order dated 17.05.2024. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ayush Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kripa Shankar Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the investigation of the case is still pending. The learned counsel for the victim has also opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the offence was committed with active connivance of the informant-applicant who is Lekhpal and who is custodian of revenue records. 6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant himself is the informant, during investigation the allegation which had been levelled against the applicant is that the named accused had committed the offence under a conspiracy with the applicant; that the named accused has already been granted interim anticipatory bail by this court coupled with the fact that the applicant is a retired government servant having no criminal history and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Kripa Shankar Mishra 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. August 28, 2025 Ram. ABAIL No. 933 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench