HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 880 of 2022 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned brief holder for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0745 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, & 13(1)(D) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as Clerk in the office of Basic Education Officer and during investigation he has been made accused with the allegation that he was also involved in the present commission of crime along with named accused but during investigation when applicant filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10053 of 2020 then Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2020 disposed of his writ petition with a direction that he shall not be arrested till submission of Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 4. He further submits that pursuant of the order dated 07.10.2020 applicant has not been arrested during investigation and there is no allegation, he did not cooperate with the investigation. He next submits that now charge-sheet has been filed and after submission of charge-sheet, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamal Singh, Satyendra Narayan Singh, Tarun Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sushil Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. He further submits that applicant is having apprehension, if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail. He next submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history. 6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. However, as per allegation, applicant was public servant and he along with others indulged in preparing forged certificates but it reflects that he was not named in the FIR and during investigation, he has been made accused. 9. Record also suggests that during investigation when applicant challenged the FIR of the present case before this court then Division Bench of this Court on 07.10.2020 stayed his arrest till submission of Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and now charge-sheet has been field and there is no allegation that applicant did not cooperate with the investigation. 10. Further, after submission of the charge-sheet custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary. 11. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out and applicant is not having any previous criminal history. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 14. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Sushil Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like ABAIL No. 880 of 2022 2 amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:- i. 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; ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant. 16. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 10, 2025 S.A. ABAIL No. 880 of 2022 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad