Mohd Zafrullah Ansari vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 12237 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohd Zafrullah Ansari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:196073
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9132 of 2025   
 
   Mohd Zafrullah Ansari    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Bakhteyar Yusuf, Osama Qamar Siddiqui, Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 73
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.      

1. Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State, apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

2. Heard Sri Bakhteyar Yusuf and Sri Osama Qamar Siddiqui, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State.

3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.1993 of 2009 (Special Case No.03 of 2017), under Sections 193, 420 and 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2009 against the applicant and others and as per allegation, in the year 1995 applicant was posted as Junior Engineer in Bareilly Development Authority and he after receiving illegal gratification passed map which was pre-approved but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submits that during investigation applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but Investigating Officer did not propose his arrest and without arrest of the applicant in the year 2017 charge sheet has been filed.

6. He further submits that after submission of the charge sheet summons were issued to the applicant but as in the meantime in the year 2012 applicant already retired from service and he started living in District Lucknow and therefore, summons issued to him could not be personally served upon him and when he came to know that charge sheet in the present matter has been filed and warrants are being issued then in the year 2024 he approached this Court in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2533 of 2024 to quash the charge sheet filed against him but on 3.3.2025 this Court disposed of his application with a direction that if applicant surrenders before the court concerned within four weeks then court concerned shall decide his bail application expeditiously, in accordance with law and till then warrants issued against the applicant were kept in abeyance.

7. He further submits that pursuant to the order dated 3.3.2025 passed by this Court applicant though not appeared before court concerned but he filed anticipatory bail application but when his anticipatory bail application has been dismissed then he approached this Court by way of instant application .

8. He further submits that after 30 years from the date of alleged commission of offence and after more than 15 years from the date of lodgement of the FIR there is no occasion to send the applicant behind bar.

9. He further submits that applicant is having apprehension that if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.

10. He further submits that even after submission of charge sheet, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

11.He further submits that apart from the present case applicant has also been made accused in one another criminal case but that case is also of the year 2009 and that case is connected with the present matter.

12. He further submits that at present applicant is aged about 74 years of age.

13. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that however, during investigation it appears that Investigating Officer did not arrest the applicant and he fully cooperated with the investigation but after submission of the charge sheet applicant did not appear and court concerned had to issue warrants against him and, therefore, considering the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2024 Supreme Court 1600 applicant does not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. Applicant was posted as Junior Engineer in Bareilly Development Authority and as per allegation he along with others passed the map by taking illegal gratification though the map were pre approved but FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2009 with regard to the alleged misappropriation committed in the year 1995, therefore, FIR of the present case was lodged after 14 years.

16. Further, it appears that during investigation applicant fully cooperated with the investigation and Investigating Officer did not propose his arrest and without his arrest charge sheet has been filed in the year 2017.

17. Further, however, it reflects that after submission of the charge sheet when applicant failed to appear then warrants were issued against the applicant but considering the averments made by applicant in the instant application that as applicant had already retired from service in the year 2012 and after retirement he settled in District Luknow and the case is of District Bareilly and summons were being issued at his Bareilly address, therefore, the same could not be personally served upon him, cannot be completely brushed aside. Further, even from the anticipatory bail rejection order passed by the court concerned it could not be reflected that warrants issued to the applicant were personally served upon him.

18. Further, record also suggests that in the year 2014 applicant approached this Court in an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. against the charge sheet filed against him and this Court on 3.3.2025 directed him to appear before the court concerned within four weeks and till then his arrest was stayed and however, applicant instead of applying bail filed anticipatory bail application but merely on this ground his anticipatory bail application cannot be withheld. Considering this fact it cannot be said that applicant tried to evade the process of law.

19. Further, however, the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) on which reliance was placed by learned AGA held that if warrants and process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued then ordinarily such accused should not be released on anticipatory bail but in the same judgment Apex Court also observed that considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice this Court can enlarge such accused on anticipatory bail. Therefore, even after issuance of warrants to an accused this Court can grant anticipatory bail to the accused persons considering the facts of the case.

20. In case at hand, applicant has already retired from service way back in the year 2012 and he is aged about 74 years of age and during investigation he fully cooperated with the investigation and he was not arrested during investigation. Therefore, considering this fact coupled with the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged about 15 years before with regard to the alleged misappropriation committed in the year 1995 in view of this Court, it would not be proper to withhold the anticipatory bail of the applicant considering the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

23. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Mohd. Zafrullah Ansari involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of the trial case 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:-

(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 temper with the evidence during the trial;

(iv) that the applicants 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;

24. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

25. It is made clear that the 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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

November 7, 2025

SKM