HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9579 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. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 82 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 of the I.P.C., Police Station – Jalalpur, District Hamirpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid case. 3. This is a second bail application moved by the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn while granting liberty for moving a fresh bail application after explaining the criminal antecedents as required under Chapter XVIII Rule 18(7) of the Rules of the Court. 4. The Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a Panchayat Secretary presently posted at Village Newriya Kaimokhar, Block Muskura, District Hamirpur. At the relevant point of time, the applicant was the Panchayat Secretary at Village Bhendidada. The allegation is that the applicant had allegedly forged the signatures of the Village Pradhan and had withdrawn Rs. 5,43,747/-. The Learned counsel has contended that a three member committee had conducted an inquiry in which it was found that on the cheques in question the signatures of the Village Pradhan were genuine. The signatures, however, were to be sent to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL) at Agra for further confirmation and before the FSL, the Village Pradhan did not provide her original signatures. The Learned counsel referring to an entry made in the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hans Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramu Ahirwar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) general diary of the concerned police station contends that the Village Pradhan was reluctant to give her signatures and even the bank did not provide the original documents and a charge sheet has been filed despite the inquiry report without awaiting the outcome of the FSL report. 5. The Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicant had been granted interim protection from arrest by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23633 of 2018 till filing of a police report. The applicant, as he was not posted at the relevant point of time at Village Bhendidada, did not have knowledge of the filing of the charge sheet which was filed in 2019. The applicant was not avoiding the proceedings and is ready to participate in the same and prove his innocence before the concerned Court. The applicant has a criminal history of one case under Sections 504, 507 I.P.C., which is a minor case not entailing in the event of a conviction a punishment of more than seven years. The applicant is on bail in the said case. 6. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but does not dispute the explanation given by the applicant regarding his criminal antecedents. Learned A.G.A. has stated that bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant and the applicant is avoiding the proceedings and he may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties. 8. The applicant has been summoned on a police report to face trial for offences under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2024) 10 SCC 690 has held that an offence of 'criminal breach of trust' and 'cheating' cannot co-exist. Even otherwise, from the three-member inquiry report dated 19.10.2016 it is clear that the cheques in question bore the signatures of the Village Pradhan. There is no report of the FSL regarding the signatures of the Village Pradhan having been forged on the cheques in question. From the perusal of the order sheet annexed, there does not appear to be any physical service of summons and in the order sheet of 30.06.2026, it appears that the applicant was informed of the summons on phone. In the prima facie of the Court, although the charge sheet had been filed in the year 2019 but the applicant does not appear to be an absconder. NABAIL No. 9579 of 2026 2 9. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 10. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 11. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Ramu Ahirwar, involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and surety in the like amount 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. 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. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 13. 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 23, 2026 Kushal NABAIL No. 9579 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad