HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 16196 of 2021 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.RC/DST/2018/A/0004/CBI/STF/DLI dated 17.1.2018, under Sections 120-B IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w13(1)(b), 13(1)(d) of P. C. Act, 1988, Police Station STF, CBI, New Delhi, with a prayer to enlarge them 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. 4. He further submits that applicant was not even named in the FIR but during investigation, he has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits that charge-sheet in the present matter has already been filed and when after filing of the charge-sheet, applicant filed the instant anticipatory bail application before this Court then Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.09.2021 enlarged him on interim anticipatory bail. 6. He further submits that there is no allegation that applicant either did not co-operate with the investigation or he misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted to him. 7. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv Sagar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sanjay Kumar Yadav Sushil Kumar .....Applicant(s) Cbi .....Opposite Party(s) credit. 8. He further submits that trial of the case is still pending and applicant is continuously attending the trial court and therefore, interim anticipatory bail earlier granted to the applicant may be confirmed. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. however, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the fact that applicant was not named in the FIR and after considering the entire facts of the case in detail, Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.09.2021 enlarged him on interim anticipatory bail and neither during investigation nor while on interim anticipatory bail, he misused the liberty granted to him . 10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. 11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation, applicant involved in misappropriation of public fund alongwith others but it reflects, he was not named in the FIR and during investigation his complicity was revealed. 13. Further, record also suggests that during investigation C.B.I. did not arrest the applicant and after submission of the charge-sheet when he filed the instant anticipatory bail application before this Court then Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.09.2021 enlarged him on interim anticipatory bail and there is no allegation that either he did not co-operate with the investigation or misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted to him. 14. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and even as per learned counsel for the C.B.I., applicant is continuously participating in the trial. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 28.09.2021 is hereby confirmed. Applicant shall remain on anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial on the same condition as earlier imposed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court while enlarging him on interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.09.2021. ABAIL No. 16196 of 2021 2 16. The instant anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant - Sushil Kumar stands allowed. September 12, 2025 KK Patel ABAIL No. 16196 of 2021 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad