HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8105 of 2025 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.4 of 2022, under Sections 465, 467 IPC and Section 13(1)A read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Department), District Bareilly (U.P.) Vigilance) Department) with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2022 with regard to the alleged misappropriation of public fund committed in the year 2015 but applicant was not even named in the FIR and during investigation, he has been made accused. He further submits, suddenly after three years from the date of lodgment of the present FIR, Investigating Officer started making attempt of his arrest and when applicant filed anticipatory bail application before the court concerned then his anticipatory bail application has been dismissed. 4. He further submits that applicant is a petty clerk and he was not having any concern with the alleged fraud. He next submits that even after three years of the FIR, there was no occasion for the I.O. to make attempt to arrest the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : P.K. Singh, Surya Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nitin Kumar Saxena .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. He further submits that however, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2022 but till date even investigation of the case could not be completed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history. 6. 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. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. However, as per allegation, applicant was public servant and he along with other accused misappropriated the public fund by committing offence of fraud and cheating but it reflects that he was not named in the FIR and during investigation, he was made accused in the present matter. 9. Further, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2022 with regard to the alleged misappropriation committed in the year 2015, therefore, there is delay of seven years in lodgment of the FIR of the present case. 10. Further, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2022 and after three years Investigating Officer tried to arrest the applicant and there is no allegation that he did not cooperate with the investigation of the case. The Apex Court in the case of Gurusewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No.11234 of 2025) decided on 03.09.2025 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." 11. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Gurusewak Singh (supra), 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. NABAIL No. 8105 of 2025 2 14. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Nitin Kumar Saxena 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 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 15, 2025 S.A. NABAIL No. 8105 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad