HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9983 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0673 of 2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police-Station Civil Lines, District Etawah, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 64 years old man. The allegation against the applicant is that at the relevant point of time he was the Manager of an institution where fake scholarship was supposedly awarded to non-existing students and the same was misappropriated by the applicant. The embezzled amount is Rs.26,700/-. Learned counsel states that the FIR was lodged in the year 2009. The investigation has been pending for the past 17 years and now once the investigation has been transferred to the Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, the police is trying to arrest the applicant even when he has been cooperating with the investigation. Learned counsel has stated that similarly situated co-accused Chandrika Prasad has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL No.9321 of 2026. The applicant has no criminal history. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Chandra Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravi Shankar Verma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) contended that the co-accused Chandrika Prasad was an 80 years old man and one of the considerations for granting anticipatory bail was that he was 80 years old. The applicant has been specifically nominated in the FIR and he may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties. 6. The FIR was lodged on 19.11.2009 and the investigation is still pending. There is no allegation against the applicant of either absconding or not cooperating with the investigation. The applicant is an old man aged about 64 years having no other criminal history. Co-accused Chandrika Prasad, who was also the Manager of an institution, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The case of the applicant stands on a similar footing. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail. 8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant-Ravi Shankar Verma, he shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:- i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police 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; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; NABAIL No. 9983 of 2026 2 iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case. September 24, 2026 A. Pandey NABAIL No. 9983 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad