Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7788 of 2025

Ravi Kumar	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Aditi Srivastava, Kandarp Srivastava : G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 82

¶4

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶5

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.

¶6

Heard Sri Kandarp Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Special Trial No. 823 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.57B of 2006, under Sections 409,420,467,468,471, 477A, 120B/34 IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Rewati, District Ballia during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Joint Development Commissioner and as per allegation he along with several others misappropriated the government fund related to Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

¶9

He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and Investigating Officer initially during investigation did not make any attempt of arrest of the applicant but in the year 2020 when he started making attempt to arrest the applicant then applicant filed Anticipatory Bail Application before this Court vide Criminal

¶10

NABAIL No. 7788 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C No.641 of 2020 and Coordinate Bench of this Court on 17.1.2020 was pleased to enlarge him on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and pursuant to the order passed by this Court during investigation applicant has not been arrested.

¶13

He further submits that now charge sheet has been filed and there is no allegation that applicant did not cooperate with the investigation.

¶14

He further submits that however, charge sheet has been filed in the year 2022 and cognizance has been taken on 10.11.2023 but summons could never be served upon the applicant and when applicant came to know about pendency of the case before the court concerned then he filed anticipatory bail application before the court concerned but his anticipatory bail application has been dismissed.

¶15

He next submits that applicant is about 71 years old and infirm person and he has already retired from service and after submission of charge sheet custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

However, as per allegation applicant, being Joint Development Commissioner, along with others misappropriated the public fund but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and charge sheet has been filed against the applicant in the year 2022 therefore, investigation continued upto 15 years.

¶19

Further, during investigation by the order of this Court applicant was on anticipatory bail and there is no allegation that he misused the liberty granted too him.

¶20

Further, however, cognizance has been taken in the year 2023 and

¶21

NABAIL No. 7788 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

thereafter summons were issued to the applicant but argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that summons could never be served upon him, cannot be ruled out at this stage considering the fact that there is no such evidence produced by the State in this regard.

¶24

Further, however, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is aged ab out 71 years old and infirm person and he has already retired from service.

¶25

Further, after submission of charge sheet custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ravi Kumar 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:-

¶29

(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.

¶30

(ii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶31

(iii) that the applicant shall not temper with the evidence during the trial;

¶32

(iv) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶33

(v) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed

¶34

NABAIL No. 7788 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

unless personal presence is exempted;

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶40

September 23, 2025

¶41

SKM

¶42

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases