Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106243 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5112 of 2025 Applicant :- Saulat Ali Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party, and perused the material placed on record. 2. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2023, under Sections 420 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The named co-accused Smt. Gyaneshwari Singh and Smt. Rafat Begum were appointed in the year 2011. The first information report has been lodged in the year 2023. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. At the relevant time the applicant was working as a Computer Operator in the office of B.S.A., Rampur on outsource basis. The applicant had no role in the appointment of the Assistant Teachers of recognized aided institutions. At this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The named co-accused Smt. Gyaneshwari Singh and Smt. Rafat Begum have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 670 of 2024, Smt. Gyaneshwari Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others. The case of the applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused Smt. Gyaneshwari Singh and Smt. Rafat Begum. Identically placed co-accused Kanhaiya Lal Saraswat has also been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 1246 of 2025, Kanhaiya Lal Saraswat v. State of U.P., vide order dated 21.05.2025. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is still pending and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above case. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, and, in particular, the fact that the applicant was not named in the first information report; the first information report has been lodged belatedly; the applicant had no role in the appointment of the Assistant Teachers of recognized aided institutions; at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence; the named co-accused Smt. Gyaneshwari Singh and Smt. Rafat Begum and identically placed co-accused Kanhaiya Lal Saraswat have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. In the event of arrest, the applicant- Saulat Ali Khan, involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (ii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court; (iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court; (v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant; (vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98; and, (vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge, and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 7. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same. 8. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad