Ved Pati Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 98 of 2026

Ved Pati Tripathi

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinay Kumar Verma, Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 15

¶6

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶7

Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today before this Court are taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri G.C.Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Verma, learned counsel the applicant, Sri Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Anand Dubey, Advocate, who has filed the Vaklatnama on behalf of complainant, which is taken on record.

¶9

Present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0232 of 2025 under sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351 BNS, P.S.-Kauriya, District-Gonda.

¶10

It is alleged in the prosecution case that the complainant Byakul Kishor Misra, who is Manager of Shri Ganesh Sanskrit Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya has alleged that the Principal Vedpati without informing him and the Committee of Management as well as office bearers while forging his signature and members of the Committee of Management and preparing forged documents has passed proposal for appointment of his son Vageesh Pati Tripathi, present applicant whose educational qualification is M.A.B.Ed, Sanskrit, Navya Vyakaran whereas the post is of Sanskrit Sahitya. It is further alleged that Vidyapati Tripathi has been working since 2021 on contract basis in the said subject, i.e. Navya Vyakaran. It is further alleged that the letter of appointment has been issued on the basis of Government Order dated 21.4.1998 whereas presently the appointment is being done

¶11

NABAIL No. 98 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

under 2009 Regulations.

¶14

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR it has been alleged that the applicant has forged the signatures of the complainant and other members of the Committee of Management and has appointed his son, Vageesh Pati Tripathi. It is submitted that regarding the appointment of the applicant's son, an order was passed by the DIOS dated 06.06.2025, which has been stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Writ - C No. 8852 of 2025. Thereafter present FIR alleging forgery has been registered against the applicant.

¶15

He submits that co-accused Vageesh Pati Tripathi filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 1948 of 2025 before this Court, which was rejected vide order dated 11.12.2025. Against the said order, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 20936 of 2025 (Vageesh Pati Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and Anr.) was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, taking note of the stay order granted by this Court in Writ - C No. 8852 of 2025 and the fact that the FIR was subsequently registered on 08.10.2025 by the Manager of the School alleging forgery of documents by the applicant while appointing his son in the school, interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the co-accused Vageesh Pati Tripathi by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.01.2026 passed in the aforesaid SLP.

¶16

Further, submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the communication of the DIOS dated 06.06.2025, wherein allegations of irregularity in appointing the applicant's son and forgery have been made, is sub judice before this Court in Writ - C No. 8852 of 2025. It is submitted that co-accused Vageesh Pati Tripathi has been granted interim anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the bail application is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of this fact, the applicant prays that he may also be enlarged on anticipatory bail. He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA for the State opposed the submissions made by the applicant's counsel. He submits that the forgery allegedly committed by the applicant is corroborated by the statements of a number of witnesses. He also submits that even the letter dated 22.05.2025, annexed as Annexure No. 16 to this bail application, written by the Manager, has been stated to be forged by the complainant while giving his statement to the Investigating

¶18

NABAIL No. 98 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

Officer.

¶21

Sri Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that the subject matter of Writ - C No. 8852 of 2025 is whether the DIOS could have passed any order for dissolution of the Committee of Management, and this question is pending adjudication before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The act of forgery allegedly committed by the applicant is not pending adjudication before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition or in any other writ petition. The services of the applicant's son were terminated by the applicant vide order dated 29.06.2025. The termination order dated 29.06.2025 has not been challenged by the applicant's son, namely Vageesh Pati Tripathi, the co-accused, by way of any writ petition before this Court.

¶22

It is further submitted that while giving notice of the bail application in the month of December, 2025, the applicant did not disclose his criminal history. However, while filing the same on 12.01.2026, the criminal history of one case, i.e., Case Crime No. 57 of 2025 under Sections 352, 115(2), 351(3), 117(2) BNS, P.S.-Kadiya, District-Gonda, was explained by way of supplementary affidavit. Still, the applicant did not approach this Court with clean hands and failed to disclose the criminal history of another case. After filing of the counter affidavit, the applicant, while filing a rejoinder affidavit, explained the criminal history of another case, i.e., Case Crime No. 32 of 2018 under Section 5/10 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, which is impermissible. Thus, the conduct of the applicant disentitles him from interim indulgence while seeking anticipatory bail.

¶23

In response, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he never intended to suppress the applicant's criminal history. The criminal history of both cases is now on record before this Court.

¶24

Perused the record.

¶25

Learned Additional Government Advocate prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file a counter affidavit.

¶26

List/put up on 27.03.2026.

¶27

Upon due consideration of the facts that the criminal history of both cases has now been properly explained by the applicant by way of affidavits which

¶28

NABAIL No. 98 of 2026

¶29

4

¶30

are on record, the order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the DIOS has been stayed by the Writ Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Writ - C No. 8852 of 2025; and that co-accused Vageesh Pati Tripathi has been granted interim anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Annexure No. SA-5 to the supplementary affidavit and his bail application is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is provided that, in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶31

The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within twenty days from today. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶32

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶33

February 13, 2026 Vinay/-

¶34

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶35

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

Ved Pati Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Pati Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Juvenile Delinquent a (Minor) Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Sahil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chandra Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Smt. Pratibha Gupta Alias Pratibha Shalya vs State of U.P. throught its Principal Secretary, Department of Home