Allahabad High Court
Kulbir Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Station In Charge ... on 10 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:17501
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 197 of 2026
Kulbir Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Station In Charge Office Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, Bashisth Muni Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Amar Jeet Singh Rakhra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. V.K. Singh, learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Mayank Sinha, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.
2. This is the second application seeking anticipatory bail for release of the applicant in FIR bearing Case Crime No. 27/2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station SIT, District Lucknow Rural.
3. The first Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1736/2023 was rejected by means of an order dated 04.08.2023 after recording the statement made by Sri Rao Narendra Singh, the learned AGA-I, on the basis of instructions, that the applicant is not named in the FIR, his name has not surfaced during the course of investigation till date and there was no apprehension of his arrest.
4. This second application has been filed stating that the Investigating Officer has told him that SIT has reached towards conclusion of investigation and as the applicant has not obtained anticipatory bail order, the Investigating Officer would have to arrest him. The second application has accordingly been filed stating that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid case.
5. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 20.07.2021 against 14 sets of persons. The first set of accused persons implicated in the FIR is 'Kapil Garg, Registrar and other officers and employees' and the address mentioned against second set of accused persons is 'B.L.S. Institute of Management, Sahibabad, Gaziabad, U.P. Bharat.'
6. The allegation levelled in the FIR is that in furtherance of a complaint dated 19.06.2019, a special investigation team was constituted which conducted an inquiry and submitted a report to a committee constituted by the Government. During inquiry, it came to light that although the complaint alleged embezzlement of Rs. 200 crore in payment of scholarships to students belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories, merely Rs. 58 crores has been drawn by the concerned institute towards payment of scholarships.
7. The FIR does not disclosed commission of any act by the applicant, which may amount to commission of an offence. The applicant is not named in the FIR.
8. In para 10 and 36 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is only an employee of B.L.S. Institute of Management Ghaziabad, and is working as the Secretary of the institute. It has further been stated that the applicant is a salaried employee and member of the scrutiny committee. He is neither the owner nor is the founder of the Institute/Society.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR in question was lodged on 20.07.2021, the applicant had cooperated with the investigation and has got his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and even after expiry of more than four years, the investigation is still going on and charge sheet is yet to be submitted.
10. Three co-accused persons of the B.L.S. Institute itself have already granted anticipatory bail in the present case and copies of their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 3, 11 & 12 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. Co-accused-Kapil Garg, Somdev Sharma & Ramabandyopadhyay, who are Registrar, Chairman and Secretary of B.L.S. Institute, have been granted anticipatory bail by this court by means of the orders dated13.07.2023, 04.09.2023 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 1566 of 2023, 1775 of 2023 & 1777 of 2023.
11. The learned G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and on the basis of instruction, he has submitted that it has come to light during investigation that the institution in question had shown various admission of students in PGDM course during the year 2013-2017 and in connivance with the officers/officials of the Social Welfare Department Ghaziabad, Government money was embezzled in the name of payment of scholarship to the students. He has further submitted that it has come to light during investigation that the applicant was working as Secretary of the Institute and he was a Member of the Admission Scrutiny Committee and his involvement in commission of the offence is prima facie established.
12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, he has cooperated with the investigation and nine co-accused persons in all have already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
13. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Kulbir Singh before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:
(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;
(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;
(iii). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) March 10, 2026 Pradeep/-