Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49262 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11159 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajat Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. The instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been preferred by applicant-Rajat Yadav against the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 01/17/2025 (State Vs. Rajat Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 481 of 2023 (Amended Case Crime No. 03 of 2023), under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali Shamli (Amended Police Station A.C.O. Saharanpur), District Shamli, whereby application No. 21-Kha for exemption from appearance of the applicant as well as his anticipatory bail has been rejected and non bailable warrant has been issued against him to ensure his presence before the trial Court. 3. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Main allegation against the applicant, who is District Development Officer is that co-accused Akshay Kumar has taken a bribe of Rs. 30,000/- at the behest of the applicant and Akshay Kumar was caught red handed while accepting said bribe. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the applicant has no concern with co-accused Akshay Kumar. There is no allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe against the applicant, therefore, considering the fact of the case that the case of present applicant stands on different footing to that of co-accused Akshay Kumar, he was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.10.2023 of the trial court subject to one of the conditions that he shall appear on the dates fixed before the trial court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. It is next submitted that the applicant is a cardiac patient, therefore, he could not appear before the trial court on 30.01.2025, 10.02.2025, 20.02.2025 and 24.02.2025 and moved applications for exemption from his appearance. It is further pointed out that before the trial court, 25.03.2025 was the date fixed but the applicant was appointed as Nodal Officer to conduct Mela from 25.03.2025 to 28.03.2025 in Ayodhya vide order dated 24.03.2025 of the Joint Mission Director, Uttar Pradesh State Rural Livelihoods Mission. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. It has further been contended that the applicant was to attend the court proceeding on 25.03.2025. He also got return ticket of train of 25.03.2025 from Meerut to Lucknow, but on account of order dated 24.03.2025 of the State Government, he could not appear before the trial court, hence, his anticipatory bail order has been cancelled by the impugned order. 4. On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is also argued that under the compelling circumstances, applicant could not appear on 25.03.2025 before the trial court, therefore, impugned order dated 25.03.2025 is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant has also given undertaking on behalf of the applicant by contending that the applicant shall appear on each and every date before the trial court. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the relief as sought for by means of this application but could not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the applicant with regard to the order dated 24.03.2025 of the State Government. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the anticipatory bail order of the applicant has been cancelled on his non-appearance on 25.03.2025 before the trial court. It is not in dispute that from 25.03.2025 to 28.03.2025 applicant was appointed as Nodal Officer to conduct Mela in Ayodhya, hence considering the fact that non appearance of the applicant on 25.03.2025 was not deliberate but due to bona fide reasons as noted above, this Court finds that the applicant has made out a case for interference. 7. Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.03.2025 is hereby quashed subject to following conditions:- i). The applicant shall appear on each and every date before the trial court and will cooperate with the trial. ii). On non-appearance of the applicant on any future date, this order shall automatically be deemed to be vacated and it will be open for the trial Court to initiate coercive action against the applicant in accordance with law. iii). It is also made clear that in case, any further duty is allotted to the applicant on the dates fixed by the trial court, he shall apprise about the said date to the authority concerned. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is hereby allowed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad