HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8798 of 2020 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri V. P. Singh Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.1032 of 2014, under Sections 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station - Kotwali Bijnore, District - Bareilly. , with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2014 against unknown person but during investigation, applicant has been made accused alongwith several others on the ground that he was supervisor in Social Welfare Department and he alonwith others misappropriated the scholarship amount of the students but entire allegations levelled against applicant are totally false. 5. He further submits that however, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2014 but till date investigation of the case is still pending and I.O. is trying to arrest the applicant. 6. He further submits that after more than a decade, there is no occasion for arrest the applicant. 7. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : K.N. Raha, Manish Kumar Kashyap, Tripti Yadav, V.P. Singh Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Yogesh Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) credit. 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 allegation, applicant being supervisor in Social Welfare Department alongwith others committed misappropriation of scholarship amount of the students but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2014 and till date investigation of the case could not be completed. 11. Further, it appears earlier I.O. did not arrest the applicant and after several years, he started making attempt of his arrest. Considering this fact, the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant that after a decade, there is no occasion to arrest the applicant, cannot be ruled out. 12. Further, Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11234 of 2025] dated 03.09.2025 also observed that as after four years Investigating Officer tried to make arrest of the accused, therefore, this fact itself was a good ground to release him on anticipatory bail. 13. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. 14. 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. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 16. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Yogesh Kumar 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; ABAIL No. 8798 of 2020 2 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 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; 17. 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. 18. 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 ABAIL No. 8798 of 2020 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad