HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2534 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.67 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)C Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station - E.O.W., District - Meerut, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or till conclusion of the trial and with further prayer to direct the respondents not to take any coercive action against him in pursuance to the Investigation No.65 of 2015, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)C Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station - E.O.W., District - Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Manager in an educational institute and as per allegations, he along with other accused misappropriated the scholarship amount of the students but entire allegations level against the applicant are totally false. 4. He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2019 with regard to the alleged embezzlement which is said to have been taken place eight years before thus FIR of the present case appears to be highly belated. 5. He next submits that however more than six years have been passed but investigation of the case is still pending. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Choudhary Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anees Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. He further submits that after six years from the date of lodgement of the FIR, there is no occasion to send the applicant behind the bar. 7. He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail . 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, as per allegations, applicant who was Manager in an educational institute along with others misappropriated the scholarship amount of the students but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged after eight years. 11. Further, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2019 but it reflects that till date investigation of the case is still pending. Considering this fact and observation made by Apex Court in case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11234 of 2025] dated 03.09.2025, this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after so many years, there is no occasion to arrest the applicant. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, 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. 14. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Anees Ahmad 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 make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. 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 NABAIL No. 2534 of 2025 2 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. 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. September 24, 2025 Zafar NABAIL No. 2534 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad