Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137275 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13066 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramnath Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Pandey,Prashant Pandey,Raghvendra Singh,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA 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 Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 52 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 07/13(1)Ka, 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Firozabad North, District Firozabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was posted as Gram Panchayat Adhikari and he along with others misappropriated the public fund but entire allegation leveled against applicant is totally false. 5. He further submits, when applicant filed anticipatory bail application then investigation was pending and on 01.03.2024 a protection order was passed by this Court and pursuant to the order dated 01.03.2024 applicant during investigation has not been arrested and now charge-sheet has been filed. 6. He further submits, there is no allegation that applicant did not cooperate with the investigation. He next 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, after submission of the charge-sheet custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history. 8. 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. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, as per allegation, applicant being Gram Panchayat Adhikari misappropriated public fund along with others but it reflects, during investigation when applicant filed instant anticipatory bail application then vide order dated 01.03.2024 he was protected and pursuant to the order dated 01.03.2024 he was not arrested during investigation and now charge-sheet has been filed against him and there is no allegation that he did not cooperate with the investigation. 11. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that after submission of the charge- sheet custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary. 12. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out considering the general practice adopted by the courts concerned now a days. 13. 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. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 15. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ramnath 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; 16. 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. 17. 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 :- 12.8.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad