Surendra Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119355

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4931 of 2025

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party, and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 424 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 409, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant joined as a Project Manager at Unit 30 C & D.S Jal Nigam on 11.05.2017 i.e. after commencement of the project. He retired on 31.05.2022. The alleged work was carried out as per the sanctioned project. The District Magistrate on 15.06.2018 sent a report to the State Government that the work of beautification carried out was found satisfactory on verification. At this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Rajendra Singh has been granted anticipatory bail till the submission of police report by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3976 of 2022 (Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.) respectively. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is pending for the last six years. Now the SIT is approaching the applicant for his custodial interrogation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and, in particular, the fact that the applicant was not named in the first information report; the applicant joined as a Project Manager in Unit 30 C & D.S Jal Nigam on 11.05.2017 i.e. after commencement of the project; the District Magistrate on 15.06.2018 sent a report to the State Government that the work of beautification carried out was found satisfactory on verification; at this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence; identically placed co-accused Rajendra Singh has been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report by this Court; and, the investigation is pending for the last six years, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Surendra Kumar Tripathi be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶17

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the

¶18

date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶19

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.7.2025 SKT/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P.

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