Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7267 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 157 of 2024 Applicant :- Jai Prakash Mani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. U.P. Vigilance Establishment Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna,Tanmay Krishna Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime/ FIR No.0017 of 2024, under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station - U.P. Vigilance Establishment, District- Lucknow. 3. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 22.11.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime/ FIR No.0017 of 2024, under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station - U.P. Vigilance Establishment, District- Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant retired from the post of Superintending Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow on 31.12.2018. The entire service record of the applicant has been unblemished. By means of impugned FIR, the allegation against the present applicant is relating to disproportionate assets. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.3 of the application, which is an order dated 20.12.2021 passed by this Court in Service Single No.21110 of 2020, Jaikar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., which is a writ petition filed by the applicant and other similarly placed employees wherein interim order has been granted by this Court to the effect that the opposite parties are restrained from requiring the applicant to furnish any information pertaining to the assets. The fact finding inquiry against the applicant, however, may continue. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, no information was asked from the applicant, therefore, the allegation in the impugned FIR that the applicant has not provided information regarding his assets is misconceived. Further attention has been drawn towards the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1854 of 2024, Harendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, wherein this Court granted interim anticipatory bail in the similar circumstances. 4. Learned counsel has stated that the present applicant undertakes that he shall cooperate in the investigation proceedings, there is no flight risk and he shall not misuse the liberty of interim anticipatory bail, therefore, his liberty may be protected in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98. 5. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafter. 6. List in the week commencing 06.01.2025. 7. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, applicant- Jai Prakash Mani shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned. 8. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. 9. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. " 4. From perusal of the order dated 22.11.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Jai Prakash Mani till disposal of the trial subject to 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 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. 6. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench