HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7643 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kumar Tejendra Bahadur, 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.65B of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 218, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station - Bansdih, District - Ballia, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 but till date with regard to the applicant investigation is spending and now Investigating Officer is trying to arrest the applicant. 4. He next submits that there is no occasion for arrest of the applicant after about two decades . 5. He further submits that even on the basis of general allegations applicant has been made accused in the present matter being B.D.O. and there is no cogent evidence which can suggest that he committed the offence of misappropriation. 6. He further submits that however apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but in that case also applicant has been made accused with similar allegations and in that case applicant is on anticipatory bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Kumar Singh, Shailendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mahendra Kumar Pandey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Per contra; learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that actually apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but could not dispute the fact that in both the cases on the basis of similar allegations applicant has been made accused. 8. He however could not dispute the other arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, as per allegation applicant was B.D.O. and he along with others misappropriated the public fund but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and with regard to the applicant investigation is still pending. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11234 of 2025] dated 03.09.2025 while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner observed that as Investigating Officer after four years proposed to arrest the accused, therefore, this fact was itself a good ground to release him on anticipatory bail. 12. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but it reflects that in both the cases, he has been made accused with similar allegations, which were lodged in the year 2006. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and observation made by Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh (supra) in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of the 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, Mahendra Kumar Pandey 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 make himself available for interrogation by a police NABAIL No. 7643 of 2025 2 officer as and when required; ii. 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; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. 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. September 25, 2025 Zafar NABAIL No. 7643 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad