HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18098 of 2021 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I. apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off. 2. Heard Sri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I. for the State. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in RC-120 2017 A 0005 (Special Case No. 11 of 2021), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, Police Station CBI ACB Ghaziabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits, on the basis of false allegation of forgery and cheating applicant has been made accused in the present matter and he is not even public servant and after considering the entire facts of the case, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has enlarged him on interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.12.2021. 5. He further submits, pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2021 applicant is on interim anticipatory bail and he is regularly attending the trial court. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history. 6. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 23.12.2021 may be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Daga, Hitesh Pachori, Ishir Sripat Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rahul Srivastava, G.A., Gyan Prakash(Senior Adv.), Sanjay Kumar Yadav Virendra Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) confirmed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for C.B.I. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, there is allegation that applicant committed the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) P.C. Act but it reflects, during investigation applicant was not arrested though he fully cooperated with the investigation. 10. Record further suggests that after submission of the charge-sheet when applicant filed instant anticipatory bail application then after considering the entire facts of the case, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2021 enlarged him on interim anticipatory bail and there is no allegation that applicant misused the liberty granted to him by this Court and it appears, he is regularly attending the trial court. 11. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 23.12.2021 is hereby confirmed. The applicant shall remain on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on the same condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 23.12.2021. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 14. 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 18, 2025 AK Pandey ABAIL No. 18098 of 2021 2 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad