Arun Kumar Goel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 209 of 2026

Arun Kumar Goel

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dilip Mani, Satish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.0027 of 2021 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C.,P.S. SIT, district Lucknow

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶11

3. It is alleged in the prosecution case that fourteen persons including the applicant have embezzled government fund for fee reimbursement and scholarship by giving fake records pertaining to SC/ST candidates on the basis of fake admissions to students between the period 2013-2017 relating to P.G.D.M. course operating in district Ghaziabad in conspiracy with the co-accused Paritosh Kumar, Social Welfare Officer, Ghaziabad and Zakir Hussain, posted in his office.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main accused Paritosh Kumar Srivastava has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.8.2025 passed in anticipatory bail No.927 of 2025. A number of other co-accused persons, total 15 in number, who were similarly situate to the applicant as explained in para 24 of the bail application, have also been granted anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has actively participated in the investigation conducted by the investigating officer and has appeared before the S.I.T. and has got

¶13

ABAIL No. 209 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

recorded his statement. The applicant is alleged to be the Secretary of the institute. He has no concern with the day to day running of the institute.

¶16

It is submitted that although the applicant has been shown at serial No.11 as Registrar of the Institute of Advance Management and Research, Ghaziabad, U.P. along with other officers and employees of the institute, however, he has never worked in the said institute. The applicant has worked in Institute of Applied Medicines & Research from 2002 to 22.8.2022. Copy of the salary slip, identify card and EPF etc of the applicant is on record. The offence is triable by Magistrate. The applicant claims parity with the bail orders of the accused persons who have been granted protection.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶18

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel. He submits on the basis of instructions, that in connivance with the officers of Social Welfare Department, Ghaziabad, the applicant has been instrumental in committing embezzlement of the government fund meant to be given to SC/ST candidates as scholarship.

¶19

6. Considering the above aspects of the matter, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the offences are triable by Magistrate, anticipatory bail orders of the co-accused persons, referred to above, role assigned to the applicant, the applicant's statement has been recorded during investigation and he was not arrested, the incident pertains to the year 2013-17, however the first information report has been registered after delay of several years in 2021 without any explanation, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he will cooperate in the ongoing investigation, perusal of the record, as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the applicant.

¶20

7. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶21

ABAIL No. 209 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

the investigating officer/S.H.O.

¶24

The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within seven days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The investigating officer shall enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail, as directed above.

¶25

8. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The applicant shall not leave India sans previous permission of the Court.

¶26

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law/ to move application for vacation of this order.

¶27

9.The application is allowed accordingly.

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

March 16, 2026 kkb/

¶30

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arun Kumar Goel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Goel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Similar cases

Chandra Kishore and 14 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Deve. Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Abhishek Yadav vs State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rudra Prakash Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Planning, Lko. and 4 Others

Kismat Ali @ Baba vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.