Bhavnath Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8546 of 2025

Bhavnath Ram	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Md Zakir Husain, Md. Nuruddin Khan : G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 73

¶4

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶5

Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA, 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 Md. Nuruddin Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA, for the State.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in FIR/Case Crime No.15 of 2020, under Sections 409,420,467, 468,471,477A, 120-B and 34 IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Varanasi Sector (E.O.W.) District Varanasi with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Block Development Officer and FIR of the present case was lodged in October, 2020 against the applicant and seven others with the allegation that they misappropriated the public fund related to 'Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna' in the year 2004-2005 but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

¶9

He next submits that even from the record it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged after 15 years and however, more than five years have been passed but till date investigation could not be completed.

¶10

He further submits that applicant has already retired from service way back in the year 2013 and after seven years from his retirement FIR of the present case was lodged with regard to the offence which was allegedly committed by him about 10 years before of his retirement.

¶11

NABAIL No. 8546 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

He further submits that after lodgement of the FIR Investigating Officer did not propose to arrest the applicant but now he is trying to arrest the applicant and, therefore, applicant had to file instant anticipatory bail application.

¶14

He further submits that applicant is about 73 years old and infirm and he is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

¶15

He further submits that therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial.

¶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 was Block Development Officer and he along with others misappropriated the public fund related to 'Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna' but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 7.10.2020 and as per prosecution alleged misappropriation was committed in the year 2004-2005 and, therefore, it appears that FIR of the present case was lodged after 15 years. It also reflects that in the meantime, in the year 2013 applicant has retired from service.

¶19

Further, however, FIR of the present case was lodged in October, 2020 and since then more than five years have been passed but till date investigation could not be completed and it also reflects that initially after the FIR Investigating Officer did not try to arrest the applicant and now he is trying to arrest him.

¶20

The Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11234 of 2025 dated 3.9.2025 in para-7 observed that the fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years by itself was a good ground for the High Court to exercise its discretion and order grant of anticipatory bail.

¶21

Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

¶22

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case

¶23

NABAIL No. 8546 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial.

¶26

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

¶27

In the event of arrest of the applicant -Bhavnath Ram involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of the 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:-

¶28

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

¶29

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;

¶30

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

¶31

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶32

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

¶33

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶37

October 17, 2025 SKM

¶38

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

Bhavnath Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavnath Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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