HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 972 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Shankar Lal Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Smt. Shikha Sinha, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.245 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 409, 406 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Fatanpur, District Pratapgarh. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 30.12.2018 against five persons, including the applicant, stating that payments were released for construction of latrines under Pradhanmantri Gramin Awas Yojna without actual construction thereof. Regarding the applicant it is stated in the F.I.R. that the applicant is a computer operator and he had uploaded some documents without the signatures of Gram Pradhan and Secretary of Gram Panchayat Sachiv. 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. It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the co-accused Bhola Pal has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shanker Lal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Hanuman Kumar Patel @ Hanuman Patel .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) means of an order dated 13.08.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.883 of 2025. 5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the applicant is a public servant and he has committed the offence by processing payments under a government scheme without actual constructions having been carried out. 6. The substantive allegation in the present case is of processing and making payments for construction of latrines without actual constructions thereof. Even as per the F.I.R. allegations the applicant is a computer operator. He was not responsible for making any spot inspection for verification of construction works and the only allegation against him is that he was responsible for uploading the documents. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a government servant coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and co-accused Bhola Pal has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court 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. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Hanuman Kumar Patel @ Hanuman Patel 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 ABAIL No. 972 of 2025 2 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. September 4, 2025 Ram. ABAIL No. 972 of 2025 3 (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