# Vijay Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 964 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-05-07 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1699 of 2025 - **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-kumar-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53552 - **Pages:** 10 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447A, 120B & 34 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 (2) - At relevant time, applicant posted as tube-well operator and in-charge of employees under Sampurn Gramin Rozgar Yojna - No departmental enquiry was initiated against him - Work under 'SGRY' was done in 2004-05, but F.I.R. lodged only in 2012, after delay of six years - After nearly 12 years of F.I.R., efforts being made to arrest applicant - No sincere effort was made by concerned officer to conclude investigation within reasonable time - As on date, investigation arising out of other 40 FIR of similar nature is still pending - Charge sheet submitted against three accused, including applicant, following Court's earlier order - Applicant not named in F.I.R., nor does counter affidavit specify when or how applicant's involvement surfaced during investigation - It only makes general allegations that accused fabricated muster rolls and misused government funds in collusion with Block Pramukh and Block Development Officer - No specific amount of alleged embezzlement by applicant mentioned - Accordingly, anticipatory bail application allowed. (Para 7, 8) Application allowed. (E-13) List of Cases cited: Sushila Aggarwal & ors. Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & anr. (2020) 5 SCC 1 ## Text 964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 38. Accordingly, the petitions are hereby disposed of in the above terms. ---------- (2025) 5 ILRA 964 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1699 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Dubey ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Anoop Bhaiya Lal Shukla Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447A, 120B & 34 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 (2) - At relevant time, applicant posted as tube-well operator and in-charge of employees under Sampurn Gramin Rozgar Yojna - No departmental enquiry was initiated against him - Work under 'SGRY' was done in 2004-05, but F.I.R. lodged only in 2012, after delay of six years - After nearly 12 years of F.I.R., efforts being made to arrest applicant - No sincere effort was made by concerned officer to conclude investigation within reasonable time - As on date, investigation arising out of other 40 FIR of similar nature is still pending - Charge sheet submitted against three accused, including applicant, following Court's earlier order - Applicant not named in F.I.R., nor does counter affidavit specify when or how applicant's involvement surfaced during investigation - It only makes general allegations that accused fabricated muster rolls and misused government funds in collusion with Block Pramukh and Block Development Officer - No specific amount of alleged embezzlement by applicant mentioned - Accordingly, anticipatory bail application allowed. (Para 7, 8) Application allowed. (E-13) List of Cases cited: Sushila Aggarwal & ors. Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & anr. (2020) 5 SCC 1 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.) 1-Heard Shri Anoop Bhaiya Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of Uttar Pradesh and perused the record. 2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejection of his anticipatory bail application by order dated 05.02.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court No. 3, Varanasi seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2012, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447A, 120B and 34 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, police station-Jalalpur, district-Jaunpur. 3- Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3.1-On receiving several complaints regarding the work done in the financial year 2004-05 under the "Sampurn Gramin Rozgar Yojana" in district Jaunpur, an enquiry was conducted on the basis of random sampling of work done in two projects by the Anti Corruption Organization. During enquiry, the work 5 All. Vijay Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 965 done was not found satisfactory. Several irregularities and malpractice etc. were detected. It was also noticed that work was not done in accordance with guideline of the scheme. 3.2-Thereafter, on the directions of the State Government, total 41 First Information Reports were lodged in different police stations of District Jaunpur against total 249 public servants and 112 private persons making allegations of irregularities, misappropriation, malpractices and embezzlement of public money and foodgrains, etc. 3.3-Year wise details of First Information Reports are as under:- Year Number of FIR 2012 05 2013 03 2017 01 2019 11 2020 16 2021 05 3.4-The investigation of all the above 41 F.I.Rs. was handed over to the Economic Offence Wing, Varanasi. 3.5-The instant case relates to the work done from the share of Kshetra Panchayat in Gram Panchayat-Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, regarding which F.I.R. dated 24.02.2012 was registered against 13 accused persons at police station Jalalpur, district Jaunpur. 4-On 11.03.2025, matter was heard at length and following order was passed:- "1. Heard Sri Anoop Bhaiya Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Vijay Kumar Dubey, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2012, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. & Section 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, during pendency of trial. 3. This matter is listed today in the fresh supplementary list. On 5.3.2025, following order was passed by this Court:- "1. Heard Sri Anoop Bhaiya Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Vijay Kumar Dubey, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2012, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. & Section 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, during pendency of trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report of the present matter was lodged on 24.02.2012 and the investigation is till date going on and charge-sheet has not been submitted, paragraph 13 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that although the first information report was lodged against 13 named accused persons but the applicant is not named in it. While placing paragraph 10 of the affidavit it is submitted that since the opposite party no.2 has sent a notice to 966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the applicant on 03.01.2025 he came to know of his involvement in the present matter and thus is under an apprehension of arrest. It is submitted that co-accused Suresh Chand has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8724 of 2023, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter is going on is being undertaken by the E.O.W. of the State. 4. The fact that investigations by the E.O.W. are being kept pending for ages is now a common fact. This Court is countering the same on daily basis in many cases. 5. It is submitted that the matter of co-accused Rajesh Kumar Mishra having Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 B.N.S.S. No. 1756 of 2025 is fixed for 11.03.2025. 6. Connect with Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 B.N.S.S. No. 1756 of 2025 (Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State Of U.P. and Another) and list on the date fixed in the connected matter. 7. Till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Vijay Kumar Dubey, in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall appear before the Station House Officer of the police station concerned within a period of two weeks from today and file certified copy of this order for its compliance. (ii) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required; 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per his instructions the investigation is s(iii) 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 office; (iv) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. 8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 9. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 10. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from 5 All. Vijay Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 967 today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order." 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per his instructions the investigation is stilltill pending. It is seen commonly that the investigation by the Economic Offences Wing of the State of Uttar Pradesh is kept pending for ages. The only justification for its pendency when called for is stated that since the matter is being investigated and it is a big matter, the investigation is pending. This Court has noticed in many cases and even has passed orders therein calling for explanation from the Economic Offences Wing regarding pendency of investigation at their end endlessly. One such matter is the present one. Noting the facts of the matter this Court has passed an order dated 5.3.2025 in it which is already extracted here-inabove. A large number of cases coming before the Court showing pendency of the investigation by the Economic Offences Wing of the State is enormous and it appears that there is no system of monitoring the investigation and even no urgency by such Economic Offences Wing in concluding the investigation. After years they start knocking the doors of the accused and then the accused approaches Courts. This cannot be accepted at all. The only conclusion which can be drawn, as of now, prima-facie looking to the facts of the present case and the other cases which have come before this Court is that the Economic Offences Wing is not taking up the investigations seriously and for best reasons known to them keep it pending endlessly. The process of monitoring the investigation by superior officers also appears to be ineffective. The Economic Offences Wing is a special wing carved out amongst the police department for investigation of the cases arising out of the matters of economic offences and even corruption. Giving so much latitude to the accused, the investigation or leaving the matter uninvestigated for long time may also result in destroying the evidence and/or tampering with evidence by the people concerned in it. 5. The Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow is the head of the police wing of the entire State. The Chief Secretary, U.P., Lucknow the Head of the Administrative Wing of the State is also therein to look after the affairs of the State. Let both the officers respond within three weeks in the present matter regarding the following features:- (i). Why the investigation by the Economic Offences Wing is kept pending for long (ii). Whether there is any responsibility clamped upon officers for delay in investigation and if yes then how does the State proceed against them if the investigation is delayed endlessly (iii). Details of all the matters pending before the Economic Offences Wing till date in which investigation is pending. (iv). If the investigation is pending for long and there is no system of its effective monitoring, steps have to be taken for preparing a procedure for effective monitoring and management of investigation before the Economic Offences Wing so that they are completed expeditiously, the call by them in this regard. 6. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted three week's time 968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES to file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit, if any. 7. Let the matter be listed on 16.04.2025 along with connected matter. 8. Since there is an interim order granted in favour of the applicant vide order dated 5.3.2025, till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C./Section 193 BNSS, 2023, whichever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Vijay Kumar Dubey, in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a fresh personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall appear before the Station House Officer of the police station concerned within a period of ten days from today and file certified copy of this order for its compliance. (ii) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required; (iii) 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 office; (iv) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. 9. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant." 10. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 11. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order." 5- Today on the matter being taken up, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that in compliance of order of this Court dated 11.03.2025, Shri Prashant Kumar, the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow has filed his personal affidavit dated 11.04.2025, which is on record. The Chief Secretary, U.P., Lucknow did not file affidavit. 6-The reply submitted by the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow through affidavit dated 11.04.2025 in response to query made by this Court vide order dated 11.04.2025 are as follow:- "13. That in reply to the point No.(i), it is humbly submitted that:- (I) In the Government Order No. 234/25-8-2014-89 (11)/70 TC dated 19 August 2014 that in the economic crimes where cases of embezzlement, misappropriation, loss of government 5 All. Vijay Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 969 money are registered, prima facie evidence is found that the amount of economic loss or the possible amount is large, and if the case is technically complex and economic crimes are found to be committed in more than one district, then such cases should be investigated by the Economic offences Wing along with the relevant documents in the format given in the attached list and a proposal should be made available to the Economic offences Wing. (II) In continuation of which, the investigation of such cases is received by the Economic Crimes Investigation Organization. (III) Whatever investigation or inquiry is received by this organization, it is not only related to many districts of the state, but in many cases the investigation extends to other states. Due to which the Investigating Officer have to spend more time and labor in collecting evidence. As a result, there is more delay in the disposal of investigation and inquiry. (IV) The accused related to the case belong to the same department and hence the appointed nodal officer comes under pressure from the department and unnecessarily delays in providing records/information. Due to this, there is a lot of delay in disposing of the investigations and there are some cases in which signature matching is necessary on the basis of scientific evidence. In those cases, the report from FSL is received late. Due to this also, there is a delay in investigations (V) Whatever investigative conclusion is drawn by the Economic Offences Investigation Organization, it is sent to the government for approval as per rules and there is a delay in getting approval after review by the government authorities. After approval, further legal action is taken in the investigation. Due to this also the investigations remain pending. (VI) After investigation, if a public servant is found guilty in the case, then a proposal is sent to the concerned department to obtain prosecution sanction for filing a case against him in the court, but due to the accused being posted in the same department, there is a lot of delay in granting prosecution sanction by the concerned department. Due to this also, investigations remain pending for a long time. (VII) In some cases, if the concerned department does not agree to the letters and statements sent for prosecution sanction, then the prosecution sanction is not given by them, then the proposal for prosecution sanction is presented before the Chief Secretary in a number of cases, in which the Chief Secretary has the final decision. Due to which there is a lot of delay in the disposal of statements. (VIII) The main reason for delay in investigations conducted by Economic Offences Investigation Organisation is that after investigation, if the accused is found guilty, then efforts are made to arrest him, but if the accused absconds, then the legal process of NBW, 82 CRPC, 83 CRPC is obtained by sending an application to the court to obtain NBW for arresting the accused. This also causes delay in investigation. 14. That in reply to the point No.(ii), it is humbly submitted that action taken in case of delay by the Investigating Officer in the investigation- 970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (i) For speedy disposal of investigations, monthly review meetings are called by senior officers from the Headquarter level and in addition to this, from time to time, investigations are reviewed officer-wise and the reason for delay in investigation is asked and necessary guidelines are issued for its disposal and investigators are ordered for speedy disposal of investigation. (ii) After regular review, if it is found that the investigating officer have shown unnecessary delay or negligence in disposing of the investigations, then punitive action is taken against them. 15. That in reply to the point No.(iii), it is humbly submitted that pending investigations in EOW, a total of 701 investigations are pending in EOW. In most of these investigations, the process of record collection and evidence collection is undergoing. The disposal of the said investigations will be ensured on the basis of merits and demerits as soon as possible. 16. That it is humbly submitted that the embezzlement and misappropriation of food grain and money has been committed under the SGRY (Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana) during the financial year 2004-2005 in the District-Jaunpur, total 41 First Information Report has been lodged in various Police Stations of District-Jaunpur including Police Station-Economic Offences Wing, Varanasi, detail of which given as under: 17. That in reply to the point No.(iv), it is humbly submitted that the Guidelines for speedy disposal investigations- (i) It is humbly that for quick disposal of investigation, an action plan is prepared under the supervision of senior officials at the headquarters level. For supervision of investigations, monthly progress report is provided to the Sector Superintendent of Police Headquarters by the investigating officer. Which is observed/examined by senior officials at the headquarters level. After investigation, the final progress report is prepared by the investigating officer by mentioning the gist of the investigation and it is examined by the prosecution branch and senior officials. Thereafter, the final progress report is sent to the government for approval. (ii) For the speedy disposal of the investigation, a review is done at the Sector Superintendent of Police and the Headquarters level, investigator-wise, and guidelines are issued for resolving/resolving the difficulties in the investigation and correspondence is also done from the Headquarters level with the concerned department for obtaining the documentary evidence from the concerned department." 6.1- Apart from above reply, learned Additional Government Advocate also submits that first information report of this case was lodged against 13 accused persons. Complicity of 12 accused came into light on the basis of oral and documentary evidence during investigation. 6 named accused persons were not found guilty and their names were separated from the investigation. 8 accused have died during investigation. 6.2-The applicant was found guilty for committing embezzlement of soil work done from Haripur Palli to Shamshan Ghat in collusion with other accused persons. The applicant made a fabricated muster roll and continuously used government money 5 All. Vijay Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 971 in collusion with Block Pramukh and Block Development Officer. 6.3- Charge-sheet dated 26.03.2025 has been filed against the applicant (Vijay Kumar Dubey), Suresh Chandra and Rajesh Kumar Mishra, on which the concerned Court below took cognizance on 02.04.2025. 7-It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at the relevant point of time, the applicant was posted as tubewell operator. In the Sampurn Gramin Rozgar Yojna, he was in-charge of employees. No departmental enquiry has been instituted in the matter against the applicant. 7.1-The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant without conducting fair investigation. There is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. During investigation, the applicant has extended his full cooperation with the investigation and has not misused the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail which was granted on 11.03.2025, therefore, the same is liable to be made absolute till conclusion of the trial. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. 8-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that:- 8.1-Regarding the work done in the year 2004-05 under the 'SGRY', F.I.R. was lodged after six years in the year 2012. 8.2-No efforts were made by the investigating officer for the last several years to arrest the applicant. 8.3-After about 12 years of lodging of the first information report, now efforts are being made to arrest the applicant. 8.4-It is now a common feature that investigation taken up by the E.O.W. of the State of U.P. is lingering on for an unlimited period on one pretext or the other and after several years, there is effort to arrest the accused persons by them. 8.5-In the present case, no sincere efforts have been made by the officer concerned to conclude the investigation within reasonable period. 8.6-The Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow, in his personal affidavit dated 11.04.2025 has mentioned the procedure of handing over the investigation of any matter to Economic Offences Wing, manner of investigation by E.O.W., approval or rejection of investigation report and grant or refuse of prosecution sanction, etc. 8.7-The affidavit dated 11.04.2025 also mentions that the investigations get delayed due to following reasons:- i- Investigating officers have to spend more time and labour in collecting evidence. ii-Departmental officers unnecessarily delays in providing records. iii- The report from F.S.L. is received late. iv-Approval after review is done by government authorities. 972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES v-After approval, further legal action is taken. vi-If a public servant is found guilty, then a proposal is sent to the concerned department to obtain prosecution sanction, but there is a lot of delay in granting prosecution sanction by the concerned department. vii-In case of denial of sanction for prosecution by the departmental officer, proposal is sent to the Chief Secretary for final decision, due to which there is a lot of delay. viii-On account of absconding of the accused, efforts are made for arrest and initiating coercive action against them. The aforesaid reasons of delay in concluding investigation, itself show the slackness being done on the part of concerned government officers of the state, which cannot be endorsed by this Court. Under the facts of the case, the explanation given for keeping the investigation pending for last 12 years cannot said to be a plausible explanation. 8.8-As on date, investigation arising out of other 40 F.I.Rs of similar nature is still pending. 8.9-In the present case charge-sheet has been submitted against three accused including the applicant on 26.03.2025 after the order dated 11.03.2025 was passed by this Court. 8.10-Applicant is not named in F.I.R. In the counter affidavit it is also not mentioned that as to when and how, the complicity of applicant came into light during investigation. Only general and evasive averment has been mentioned that accused made a fabricated muster roll and continuously used the government money in collusion with Block Pramukh and Block Development Officers. The specific amount of alleged embezzlement on the part of applicant has not been mentioned in the counter affidavit dated 11.03.2025. 8.11-This Court is also of the view that parameters for grant of anticipatory bail and quashing of F.I.R. or charge-sheet stand on different footing. 8.12- The co-accused Suresh Chand has been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 07.11.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8724 of 2023. 8.13-There is no material on record to presume that under the facts of the case, there is danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9.Object of section 482 of B.N.S.S. 2023, is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court can-not be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice, apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society, etc.) with 5 All. Vipin Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. 973 meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 10-In the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it has been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case it can continue up to conclusion of trial. Further the power to grant anticipatory bail vested in High Court does not comes to an end after submission of charge sheet. If the fact of the given case make the applicant entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, even after submission of charge sheet against him and cognizance of the same by the Court, the second anticipatory bail would be maintainable before the High Court even though the applicant was earlier granted anticipatory bail till the submission of charge sheet by the High Court. 11-In the light of the above discussion, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, this Court feels that aforesaid interim anticipatory bail order 11.03.2025 is liable to be confirmed. 12-As a fallout and consequence of the above, aforesaid interim anticipatory bail order dated 11.03.2025 granted in favour of the applicant is made absolute till conclusion of the trial, subject to following conditions:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each date unless inevitable. (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 tamper with the evidence. (iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, it will be open to the prosecution to move an appropriate application for cancellation of this anticipatory bail order before this Court 13-With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 14-It is clarified that the observations made above are limited for the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court concerned shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. ---------- (2025) 5 ILRA 973 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 08.05.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3971 of 2025 Vipin Tiwari ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Ajai Kumar Shukla, Nisha Devi Counsel for the Opposite Party: G.A.