Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107248 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2860 of 2025 Applicant :- Suresh Chand Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Srivastava,Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off. 2. Heard Sri Dillep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0209 of 2019, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant submits, applicant was posted as Tehsildar and on the basis of false allegation FIR of the present case was lodged against him and several others in the year 2019 with the allegation that they misappropriated the public fund. 5. He further submits, during investigation applicant challenged the FIR of the present case before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8667 of 2019 and on 22.10.2020 the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay the arrest of the applicant till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and pursuant to the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court during investigation applicant was not arrested. He further submits, there is no allegation that applicant did not cooperate with the investigation. 6. He further submits, after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and others on 02.07.2024 and summons were also issued. He further submits, applicant is having apprehension that if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail. 7. He further submits, as during investigation arrest of the applicant was stayed, therefore, after submission of the charge- sheet there is no occasion to send the applicant in jail in the present matter. He further submits, even after submission of the charge- sheet there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. 8. He further submits, apart from the present case however applicant has also been roped in another case but in that case he has been released on anticipatory bail. 9. He further submits, applicant has already retired from service in the year 2016 and he is aged about 69 years, therefore, considering the above facts, he should be enlarged on anticipatory bail till trial. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation, applicant was Tehsildar and he misused his position along with other accused and misappropriated huge public fund along with other accused but it reflects, arrest of the applicant was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court during investigation and there is no allegation that he misused the liberty granted to him by the Division Bench of this Court. 13. Further, considering the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299, the apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out considering the general practice adopted by the courts now a days. 14. Further, as investigation of the case has already been concluded, therefore, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. 15. Further, however apart from the present case applicant has also been roped in another case but in that case he has been released on anticipatory bail. 16. Further, applicant is aged about 69 years and he has already retired from service in the year 2016 i.e. even before lodgement of the FIR of the present case. 17. 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. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 19. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Suresh Chand Sharma 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:- i. 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; ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 20. 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. 21. 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. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad