Rajbeer Pal Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8007 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶1Heard Sri Dharmraj Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

¶2The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 11 of 2018, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Delhi Gate, District Meerut with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail during trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants submits, FIR of the present case was lodged on 17.01.2018 against applicants and as many as 83 others with the allegation that applicants along with others misappropriated the public money related to Kanya Vidyadhan Yojna but entire allegation levelled against the applicants is totally false.

¶4He further submits, the alleged misappropriation said to have been taken place in the year 2006-07 but FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2018 i.e. after ten years.

¶5He further submits, even during investigation applicants have not been arrested and after service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. charge-sheet has been filed against them and there is no allegation that they did not cooperate with the investigation.

¶6He further submits, after submission of the charge-sheet applicants are having apprehension that if they will appear before the court concerned then they will be sent to jail. He further submits, there is no occasion for the applicants to go behind the bar after more than 15 years of alleged Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhanraj Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajbeer Pal Singh And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) misappropriation.

¶7He further submits that applicants are private persons and they are not public servants and they are not having any criminal history. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicants should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶8Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶10However, as per allegation, applicants along with others misappropriated the public money related to Kanya Vidyadhan Yojna but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after ten years against as many as 84 persons including applicants.

¶11Further, during investigation applicants have not been arrested and there is no allegation that they did not cooperate with the investigation.

¶12Further, now charge-sheet has been filed and after submission of the charge-sheet custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. Further, apprehension of arrest raised by the applicants cannot be ruled out.

¶13Further, applicants are private persons and they are not public servants and they are not having any criminal history to their credit.

¶14Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶15Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶16In the event of arrest of the applicants-Rajbeer Pal Singh, Prakash Veer and Madanpal Singh 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:- i. that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police NABAIL No. 8007 of 2025 officer or tamper with the evidence; ii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶17In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶18It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 26, 2025 SKM NABAIL No. 8007 of 2025 (Sameer Jain,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad