HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7122 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Ranvijay Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.176 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station - Bansdih, District - Ballia, with a prayer to direct the S.H.O. of Police Station - Bansdih Road, District - Ballia to not to take coercive action against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and co-accused Vinod Kumar Verma and as per allegation, applicant made demand of bribe from the complainant but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 4. He further submits that during investigation, applicant fully co-operated with the investigation and now investigation of the case has been completed. 5. He further submits that as during investigation, applicant has not been arrested therefore, after investigation of the case, there is no need of his custodial interrogation. He placed reliance upon the judgement passed by Apex Court in the case of Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another dated 16th August, 2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021, arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5422 of 2021. 6. Per contra; learned A.G.A. however opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamendra Singh, Ranvijay Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Randhir Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the observation made by Apex Court in the case of Siddharth (supra), in my view applicant is entitle to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 9. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Randhir Kumar Singh 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; 10. 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. 11. 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 24, 2025 Zafar NABAIL No. 7122 of 2025 2 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad