HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7450 of 2025 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. Order on Amendment/correction Application 1. Heard Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-1 for the State respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to mistake in prayer clause of the instant bail application the words 'case crime no.' could not be mentioned and therefore, he may be permitted to amend/correct the prayer clause of the instant amendment/correction application. 3. Learned AGA is having no objection. 4. In the light of the above, the instant amendment/correction application stands allowed. Order on Bail Application 5.Heard Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned-1 for the State respondent. 6. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 815 of 2015, under Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Civil Lines (now the investigation is being carried out by E.O.W., Meerut), District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is Manager of a school and as per allegation, he misappropriated the public fund related to the scholarship amount of the students alongwith others but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 8. He further submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2015 but Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Danish Saifi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. & 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) till date investigation could not be completed but after ten years Investigating Officer of the case started making attempt to arrest the applicant and therefore, applicant had to file instant anticipatory application. He next submits, after ten years from the date of FIR, there is no occasion to arrest the applicant. 9. He further submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant that either he was absconder or he was not co-operating with the investigation. He also submits, even otherwise FIR was lodged after four years. 10. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support to the instant anticipatory bail application. 11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, as per allegation applicant who was manager in a school alongwith others misappropriated the scholarship amount of the students but it reflects FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2015 and however, since then ten years have been passed but till date investigation of the case is still pending. 14. Further, however, there is no allegation that applicant was either not co-operating with the investigation or he was the absconder but in spite of that Investigating Officer did not propose to arrest him earlier and now after ten years, it appears, he is trying to arrest him. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No. 11234 of 2025) decided on 3.9.2025 observed, "the fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years by itself was a good ground for the High Court to exercise its discretion and order grant of anticipatory bail." 16. Further, with regard to the alleged misappropriation committed in the year 2010 FIR of the present case was lodged on 2015 i.e. after five years. 17. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one other case but he has explained his criminal history in the affidavit filed in support to the instant anticipatory bail application. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. NABAIL No. 7450 of 2025 2 20. Let the applicant-Danish Saifi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. October 14, 2025 Ankita NABAIL No. 7450 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad