Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112526 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1711 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This is second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant Rajesh Jaiswal with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in connection with Criminal Case No. 576 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 231 of 2014, under Sections 332, 342, 353, 395, 397 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Raipur, District Sonbhadra. The first anticipatory bail application No. 11534 of 2023 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2023 solely on the ground that the accused applicant is absconder and process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued against him due to his absconding. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the matter. It is next submitted that actually no process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. has ever been issued against the applicant and the accused applicant is not absconder. It is further submitted that an order for issuing process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. was passed against him but now a report has been submitted by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division/(F.T.C.)/Judicial Magistrate (14th Finance Commission), Sonbhadra dated 26.05.2025 is available on record wherein it has been mentioned that although non-bailable warrants were issued on 04.01.2025, 28.02.2025 and 29.03.2025 against the present accused applicant but at present no processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued against the applicant. It is next submitted that since no processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued against the applicant, the applicant is not an absconder as submitted by learned A.G.A. on the previous occasion after submission of charge sheet against the accused applicant. It is further submitted that earlier the applicant alongwith five other persons had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14816 of 2014 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court granted an interim protection to the applicant till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that no custodial interrogation is now required in this matter after filing of the charge sheet. In case the appellant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. The present criminal misc anticipatory bail application has been opposed by learned A.G.A. and it has been submitted that an order for issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was passed against the applicant but no such process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. were ever issued against the applicant. 5. Although charge sheet has been filed in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 6. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter. 7. The second anticipatory bail application is allowed. 8. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter; (ii) 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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned. 9. In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad