HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 385 of 2024 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Aklank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.17 of 2016, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)C of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kithaur, District Meerut, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter and during investigation when applicant filed instant anticipatory bail application then co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2024 directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 4. He further submits that now charge sheet has been filed and pursuant to the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court during investigation applicant was not arrested and there is no allegation that he misused the liberty granted to him. He further submitted that even after submission of charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. He further submits, applicant is having apprehension, if he will appear before the court then he will be sent to jail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohit Kumar Singh, Sujata Choudhary Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ashraf Ali .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. He further submits that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but in that case with similar allegation, he has been made accused. 6. He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, as per allegation, applicant was public servant and he misappropriated the public fund but it reflects that when he filed instant anticipatory bail application, then on 06.03.2023 co-ordinate bench of this Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 10. Further, now charge sheet has been filed and after submission of charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary and there is no allegation that he did not cooperate with investigation. 11. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out. 12. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but in that case with similar allegation, he has been made accused. 13. 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. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 15. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Ashraf Ali involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion ABAIL No. 385 of 2024 2 of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like 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; 16. 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. 17. 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. 385 of 2024 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad