Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121798 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10970 of 2023 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Milan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri S. B. Singh, learned AGA-I apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally, disposed off. 2. Heard Sri Ram Milan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 0614 of 2018, under Section7, 13(1)A of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 as amended in 2018 read with section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 409, 120-B IPC, Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2018 and as per allegation, applicant misused his position being public servant and misappropriated the government money but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 5. He further submitted that during investigation applicant was not arrested and he fully co-operated with the investigation and averment in this regard has been made in para-11 to the affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application. He next submits, even there is no allegation that applicant did not co-operate during investigation. 6. He further submitted that now charge sheet has been submitted and applicant is having apprehension that if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail. 7. He further submitted that even after submission of the charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. 8. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation, applicant being public servant misused his position and misappropriated the government money but FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2018 and now charge sheet has been filed and during investigation applicant has not been arrested. 12. Further, there is no allegation that either he did not co-operate with the investigation or he was absconder. 13. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after submission of the charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. 14. Further, considering the general practice adopted by court concerned now a days, apprehension of arrest, raised by applicant can not be ruled out. 15. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in this case, till conclusion of trial. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 18. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Arun Kumar Srivastava, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till 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 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; 19. 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. 20. 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 :- 24.7.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad