Ajay Kumar Gautam vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 11377 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ajay Kumar Gautam vs State Of U.P. on 10 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181345
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5149 of 2023   
 
   Ajay Kumar Gautam    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Vijai Kumar Tripathi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 73
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.      

1. Heard Sri Vijai Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.169 of 2018, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant filed instant anticipatory bail application in the year 2023 and however, co-ordinate bench of this Court on 31.05.2023 did not dispose of instant anticipatory bail application but vide order dated 31.05.2023, applicant has already been released on anticipatory bail and, therefore, there is no need to pass any fresh order and in the terms of the order dated 31.05.2023, applicant may be permitted to remain on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and instant anticipatory bail may accordingly, be disposed of.

4. Learned A.G.A. is having no objection.

5. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. From the record, it reflects that instant anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant in the year 2023 and on 31.05.2023 following order has been passed:

"1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Kailash Ram Yadav in connection with Case Crime No. 169 of 2018, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Hardi, District-Bahraich during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Case No. 195 of 2023 (State Vs. Dinesh Kant Srivastava and Others), under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Hardi, District-Bahraich now pending in the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.-5, District-Gorakhpur.

4. Record shows that an FIR dated 25.07.2018 was lodged by first informant-Shridharacharya Pandey, Inspector, U.P. Vigilance Organization, Gorakhpur and was registered as Case Crime No. 169 of 2018, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Hardi, District-Bahraich. In the aforesaid FIR, as many as 5 persons namely - (1) Dinesh Kant Srivastava, (2) Bramha Singh, (3) Ajay Kumar Gautam, (4) Kailash Ram Yadav and (5) Ramraja have been nominated as named accused.

5. Apprehending his arrest during the course of investigation, applicant approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1998 of 2022 (Kailash Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). Aforesaid anticipatory bail application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2023. For ready reference, the same is re-produced hereinunder:-

"The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 169/2018, under Sections 409/420/467/468/470/471/120-B I.P.C and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Anti Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Hardi, District Bahraich.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation in the F.I.R. for embezzlement of public funds have been made against the applicant and several others accused persons. The recovery order was passed by the department assigning the liability of the applicant to the tune of Rs. 25,590/-. The applicant has retired from service. The punishment order has been quashed by the learned tribunal vide judgment and order dated 02.01.2019 passed in claim petition No. 1719/2018 "Kailash Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P and others".

It is further submitted that he has no criminal antecedents and he shall cooperate in the investigation.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application submitting that this is embezzlement of public funds and prima facie involvement of the applicant is apparent.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that presently the applicant is 67 years old. He is ready to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,590/- before the learned trial court.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant, the applicant is 67 years old retired govt. employee of the State Government and he will cooperate in the investigation, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O./trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(1) The applicant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,590/- before the trial court which shall be subject to outcome of the trial. The amount so deposited shall be kept in an interest bearing account.

(2) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

(3) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

(4) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

(5) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

Subject to the undertaking given by the applicant the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of."

6. After completion of investigation of aforementioned case crime number, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 20.12.2022.

7. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the charge sheet was submitted on 20.12.2022 and the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order was passed by court concerned on 23.01.2023 but no coercive process has been issued against applicant. Consequently, the present application for anticipatory bail is liable to be allowed.

8. It is next contended by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is a retired Government Servant. He superannuated from his services in the year, 2016. In respect of the charge alleged against applicant in the present criminal proceedings, departmental proceedings were also initiated and a penalty of Rs. 25,590/- was imposed upon applicant vide order dated 11.09.2018. The said order dated 11.09.2018 was challenged by the applicant before Public Service Tribunal at Lucknow and the claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 01.01.2019. He, therefore, submits that since the applicant has been acquitted of the charges alleged against him in the present proceedings in the departmental proceedings, therefore, by virtue of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (i). Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal (2011) 3 SCC 581, (ii). M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 12 SCC 315 & (iii). Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr., (2020) 9 SCC 636, the criminal proceedings cannot be sanctioned. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The charge sheet having been submitted, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. No such circumstance has emerged on the basis of which, it can be said that custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the course of trial. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5).On the above premise, he, therefore, submits that the benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in favour of applicant.

9. Per contra,f the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for anticipatory bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, remedy of applicant is to approach the court below and apply for regular bail. Reference has been made to the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198. On the basis of above, it is urged by the learned A.G.A. that since no peculiar circumstance has emerged, therefore, the present application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.

10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration.

11. Notice on behalf of opposite party 1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A. He prays for and is granted 4 weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Applicant will have 2 weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

12. List for orders after expiry of aforesaid period.

13. In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicant-Kailash Ram Yadav shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) the applicant will make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

(ii) the applicant will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

14. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant."

7. Therefore, however, it reflects that, vide order dated 31.05.2023 the instant anticipatory bail application has not been disposed of, but it further reflects that co-ordinate bench of this Court on 31.05.2023 has released the applicant on anticipatory bail and thus there is no need to pass any further order.

8. Therefore, in the light of order dated 31.05.2023 instant anticipatory bail stands disposed of accordingly.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

October 10, 2025

S.A.