Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:99344 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4910 of 2025 Applicant :- Anokhe Lal Gangwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and record has been perused. 3. This anticipatory bail application U/s 482 BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the applicant Anokhe Lal Gangwar with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow the application for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 04 of 2024, under Section 13(1)(b), 13(2) P.C. Act, 1998, Police Station- Junvai, District- Sambhal, on the such term and condition as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged on 2.1.2024 by Mohd. Ishtiyaq of the Anti Corruption Department, Moradabad, District Moradabad against the applicant, is that an inquiry was conducted on the directions of Additional Director General of Police, Office of DGP Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow regarding disproportionate assets by the accused. In pursuance of which, he conducted an inquiry and found that the accused Anokhe Lal Gangwar, who was posted as Sub-Inspector, during check period 1.3.2016 to 13.8.2020 had his known sources of income as Rs.33,81,703/- whereas during the said period he for the maintenance of his family, purchase of land/plot and purchase of vehicle has spent Rs.65,72,190/-, which is in excess of Rs.31,90,487/- of his known sources of income and as such is about 94.34% excess of his known sources of income. The inquiry has concluded and it has been found that he has disproportionate income of his known sources. He was asked to explain the same, but he could not satisfactorily explain it. The FIR has, thus, been lodged against him. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant had moved an application alongwith the entire documents of income and expenditure to the authority concerned, but the same was not considered and the present first information report has been lodged on false and incorrect facts. It is further submitted that the applicant is a government employee and had joined at the post of Constable on 01.09.1988 but the authority concerned has not considered his income in actual. It is further submitted that the income of the family members of the applicant has not been considered by the inquiry officer/informant. It is submitted that the inquiry is totally false. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was previously made an accused in a case being Case Crime No.277 of 2020, registered under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Bhanari, District Sambhal, in which applicant had surrendered before the court concerned and was released on bail vide order dated 22.1.2021 passed by this Court. It is submitted that as such the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail in the present case. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is a government servant and posted in the police department and was found to be having disproportionate assets to the tune of 94.34% of his known sources of income, which is about the double of his actual income. It is further submitted that even previously the applicant was charged for financial offence of which a first information report was lodged in the year 2020. It is submitted that in so far as the inquiry is concerned, the same was conducted on the directions from the office of Director General of Police Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the reply given by the applicant was considered and then the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that the applicant had disproportionate assets and then proceeded to lodge the first information report. 8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State that the further defence of the applicant needs to be shown in the trial at the appropriate stage as is settled law and has also been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu : (2023) 6 SCC 768. It is submitted that the present case is a case of serious nature as it involves corruption by the government servant who is in the police department. As such, the present anticipatory bail application may be rejected. 9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is posted in the police department. In the inquiry conducted by the informant reveals disproportionate assets by him in huge amount. The explanation of the applicant was not considered sufficient and trustworthy by the inquiry officer. His defence has to be considered in the trial at the appropriate stage. Even previously he was an accused in a case of corruption in which he is granted bail. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances and the case, no case for interference is made out. Thus, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 24.6.2025 Vikas (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad