Shri Gopal vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Other

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Special Case No.04/2025, C.B.I. vs. Rajesh @ sonu and others, arising out of F.I.R. No.RC1202024A0015, under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 340(2) BNS & Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI/ACB Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR and FIR of the present case was lodged against the SubPostmaster of a post office and others, with the allegation that by playing fraud, they misappropriated public funds but during investigation, applicant, who was a Postal Assistant has also been made accused in the present matter on the ground that co-accused persons including Rahul Kumar, the Sub-Postmaster (since deceased) used his ID and except this, there is no other allegation against the applicant on record.

¶12

He further submits that applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but the I.O. did not arrest him and without his arrest, charge sheet has been filed.

¶13

NABAIL No. 9264 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

He further submits that after submission of the charge sheet, when summons were issued then summons were served to him on 18.9.2025 but applicant could not appear on 20.9.2025 and on 20.9.2025, NBW was issued against the applicant.

¶16

He further submits that applicant failed to appear before the court concerned only on one date, i.e. on 20.9.2025 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is evading the process of law.

¶17

He further submits that applicant has an apprehension that if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.

¶18

He further submits that as during investigation, applicant was not arrested and he fully cooperated with the investigation, therefore, after submission of the charge sheet, there is absolutely no reason to send him behind bars.

¶19

Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments on fact advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶20

As per allegations, applicant who is a Postal Assistant, indulged in the commission of the instant offence along with others but only allegation against him is that other accused person, who was named in the FIR, used his ID.

¶21

Record further suggests that during investigation, applicant fully cooperated with the investigation, but the IO did not arrest him and charge sheet was filed without his arrest.

¶22

Further, however, it reflects that on 20.9.2025, NBW was issued against the applicant but it appears from the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the court concerned by which court concerned rejected the anticipatory bail application of the applicant that summon was served to him on 18.9.2025 i.e. just two days before the date fixed, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was trying to evade the process of law.

¶23

Further, even after submission of the charge sheet, there is no need for custodial interrogation of the applicant.

¶24

NABAIL No. 9264 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

Further, apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be completely ruled out and the applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Shri Gopal 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 that:-

¶30

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;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

It is made clear that 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.

¶37

NABAIL No. 9264 of 2025

¶38

4

¶39

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶40

November 18, 2025 S.A.

¶41

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shri Gopal v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Gopal v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Other

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

Rinku Dohare vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Sharma vs Ncb

Smt. Payal Gupta vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajesh Rajput vs State of U.P. and 3 Others