HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6747 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Shabeena Begum, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 463 of 1988, under Sections 193, 197, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 409, 120-B IPC & 5(1), 5(2)D Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and 13(1), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ballia, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 1988 with the allegation that applicant, who was Senior Assistant in Rural Engineering Department, committed misappropriation of public fund by manipulating the muster roll of the employees but entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false. 5. She further submitted that during investigation, applicant however, fully cooperated with the investigation but he was not arrested and without his arrest charge sheet has been filed in the year 2007 i.e. after 20 years. 6. She further submitted that after submission of charge sheet, court concerned took the cognizance and issued summons to the applicant but in the meantime address of the applicant has been changed, therefore, summons could not be served to him. She further submitted that in the year 2015, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Priti Kumari Maurya, Shabeena Begum Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinod Kumar Srivastava .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant has already retired from service and when from his service book correct address was found then in the year 2025 on the correct address notices were served to the applicant, therefore, applicant is not an absconder. 7. She further submitted that applicant is aged about more than 70 years and he is suffering with liver cirrhosis and considering the facts of the case, it would not be proper to send him jail after about 30 years of the alleged offence. 8. She further submitted that applicant is having apprehension, if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail. 9. She further submitted that therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation, applicant being Senior Assistant in Rural Engineering Department misappropriated the public fund but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 1988 and charge sheet could only be submitted in the year 2007. 13. Further, however, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant in the year 2007 and he filed the instant anticipatory bail application in the year 2025 i.e. after more than one and half decade but considering the averment made by applicant in the supplementary affidavit dated 23.09.2025 filed in support of the instant anticipatory bail application with regard to address of applicant and service of notice, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that he is not an absconder, cannot be completely ruled out. 14. Further, applicant has already retired from the service way back in the year 2015 and he is aged about 70 years and is suffering with liver cirrhosis. 15. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be completely ruled out. 16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history NABAIL No. 6747 of 2025 2 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, Vinod Kumar Srivastava 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 that:- 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. September 23, 2025 KK Patel NABAIL No. 6747 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad