Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47438 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1724 of 2025 Applicant :- Shri Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Sharma,M.N. Singh,Mahesh Narain Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 BNSS has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 5/Additional Session Judge, Gorakhpur seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 062 of 2015, under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh. Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant is that with regard to alleged incident which took place between 15.01.2013 to 06.05.2015, first information report was lodged on 06.05.2015 against D.P. Singh, Gufran Azmi, S.P. Yadav and an unknown contractor. The applicant is not named in the first information report. Initially investigation of this case was conducted by the police from 06.05.2015 to 23.11.2019, thereafter investigation was transferred to E.O.W. vide G.O. dated 18.10.2019 and after 16.11.2019, case has been investigated by E.O.W. The applicant's name has surfaced during investigation after eight years on 18.10.2023 alongwith co-accused Sriprakash Yadav, who has been granted interim protection by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8040 of 2024. The case of present applicant stands on similar footing to that of co-accused Sriprakash Yadav, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for similar protection. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the applicant being junior officer in the department was duty bound to comply with the directions of the higher officers / Project Manager following the working manual. The applicant has been retired on 31.07.2023, therefore, earlier he was not aware about the coercive process issued against him. It is also pointed out that the applicant has been falsely implicated in 11 other cases and in all the said cases, he has been granted anticipatory bail, which have been explained in para 28 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. Lastly, it is submitted that in view of the above, the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with the investigation of this case. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant but does not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not in dispute that the applicant is not named in the first information report dated 06.05.2015 and complicity of the applicant came into light after eight years. Investigation of this case is going on since 2015 but till date, no charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Accountant. Now he has retired from service. Co-accused Sriprakash Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail as noted above. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted above, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, this Court is of the view that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during investigation. In the event of arrest of the applicant Shri Pratap Singh involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. with the following conditions :- i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer / investigating officer as and when required. 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. iii)The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above or in case it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited for the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application only and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The investigating officer of this case shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 4.4.2025/Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad