Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1014 of 2025

Ram Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sabita Lahiri Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Ms. Sabita Lahiri, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶10

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 0045 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 34, 120-B of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow.

¶11

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 05.03.2021 against a solitary named accused person and some unnamed employees of Bhatkhande Music Institute Deemed University, near Kaiserbagh, an inquiry was conducted, in which, it transpired that Vice Chancellor of the University (the named accused) had got several works conducted in violation of the relevant financial rules and has spent Rs. 3, 08,00,000/- in an illegal manner.

¶12

During investigation, it transpired that the applicant is the Administrative Officer working in the University and the order passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University forming a Purchase Committee was in fact forwarded by the applicant acting as the Registrar In-charge of the University.

¶13

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has

¶14

ABAIL No. 1014 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had merely forwarded the order of formation of committee which was passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University. She has further submitted that the Head of the Committee Dr. Shristi Mathur has been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 29.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 939 of 2025.

¶18

The learned A.G.A-I has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that numerous persons had conspired to cause undue loss to public exchequer by conducting certain works in Bhatkhande University in an illegal manner, without inviting any tenders and without following the procedure established. He has submitted that the investigation against the applicant is still pending.

¶19

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R has been lodged against a solitary accused person who was the Vice Chancellor of the University; the only against the applicant is of forwarding the order of formation of Purchase Committee passed by the Vice Chancellor and of having forwarded certain files in discharge of his duties in compliance of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University; that the applicant is in Government Service, he has no criminal history and in case of grant of anticipatory bail there appears to be no reasonable apprehension of his absconding from the process of law and that some co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail/ bail in this case, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case.

¶20

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Ram Kumar before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶21

(i). that the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶22

ABAIL No. 1014 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

(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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶25

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶26

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶27

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶28

September 15, 2025 Pradeep/-

¶29

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Having Its Office at Jail Vs Smt. Ramrati and Ors.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.Thru Manager Vs Smt. Madhu Devi and Ors.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Lko. Having a Branch at C-Block Vs Sri Chhedi Lal Jaiswal and Ors.

Daalchandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kundan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another