SATISH KUMARversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 447 of 2026

Satish Kumar
                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

Central Bureau Of Investigation
                                                            .....Opposite
                                                                  Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Ashish Pandey, Nikil Pathak, Pragya
                                Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rahul Srivastava

Court No. - 73
                 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the
prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Satish Kumar in FIR
No.RC2182021A0006, under Sections 109 of I.P.C., Sections 13(2) r/w
13(1)(b) P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Section 13(2) R/w
13(1)(e) P.C. Act, 1988, Police Station AC-III, Delhi, District -Delhi.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that during
investigation the applicant was not arrested and the applicant has co-
operated with the investigating agency. Subsequently, charge sheet has
been filed on 29.11.2024. The summoning order has been issued to the
applicant on 25.8.2025. Since the applicant was not arrested during
investigation and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Musheer Alam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SSC
Online SC 116, the law down by this Court in Smt. Bacchi Devi Vs.
State of U.P. and another, 2025:AHC:136034, the applicant is also
entitled to the same protection as has been given in the aforesaid
judgment. The order passed by the Supreme Court in Musheer Alam Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra) is quoted hereunder:-

"1. The petitioner herein has been denied anticipatory bail by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in connection with case Crime
No.320/2020, which has now with the filing of the charge sheet
culminated in Sessions Case No. 941/2024 for the offence punishable
                                                        NABAIL No. 447 of 2026
                                2


under Sections 13(1) (e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short "the Act, 1988").

2. It appears from the materials on record that a First Information Report
came to be lodged at the Kotwali Police Station, district Barabanki for
the offence enumerated above. It is the case of the prosecution that the
check period between 2002 and 31-5-2009 revealed that the petitioner
herein had assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs.1,50,41,908/- to the
known sources of his income.

3. In such circumstances, the Anti Corruption Department, Ayodhya,
Faizabad, U.P. decided to proceed against the petitioner.

4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Akshat Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing for the State.

5. We take notice of the fact that the investigation is over and charge-
sheet has been filed in the CBI Court at Gorakhpur.

6. While the investigation was in progress, the Investigating Officer did
not deem fit to arrest the petitioner herein.

7. The CBI Court has taken cognizance and has issued summons to the
petitioner herein to appear.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected
after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the
charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this
unusual practice except that it makes no sense.

9. We are of the view that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet
is filed then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court
concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.

10. If at all, the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner,
he could have arrested him during the course of the investigation itself.
Now there is no point in making a formal arrest.
                                                          NABAIL No. 447 of 2026
                                3


11. In such circumstances, referred to above, we order that the petitioner
herein shall appear before the CBI Court, Gorakhpur and furnish bail to
the satisfaction of the Court.

12. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

13. Pending application(s), if any, stands dispose of."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the
apprehension raised by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated
17.1.2025 that after filing of the charge sheet the accused are being
arrested and protection was granted by the Supreme Court. The applicant
is also entitled for the same protection. In the present case the
disproportionate asset as per the first information report is to the tune of
Rs.5 crores. The applicant has explained criminal history in paragraph 21,
22 and 23 of the affidavit accompanying this application, in which the
applicant has already been enlarged on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that the applicant was not
arrested during investigation and has co-operated in the investigation.
Therefore, there was no requirement of arrest of the applicant. He has not
disputed the law laid down by Supreme Court in Musheer Alam Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra).

5. It is to be seen that once the investigation is over and the applicant has
co-operated in the investigation, there is no foundation before this Court
to find that the applicant will not co-operate with the trial court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and another (supra) has already issued direction for granting bail to the
accused person. In terms of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the
law laid down by Supreme Court is required to be followed in letter and
spirit.

6. In view of the aforesaid, once the investigation is over and the charge
sheet has been submitted, then the applicant is required to appear before
the court concerned and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Therefore, it is directed that the applicant shall appear before the court
concerned within a period of two weeks from today and furnish bail to the
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 447 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    satisfaction of the court concerned. The court concerned shall be obliged
                                    under law to accept the bail bonds of the applicant in terms of the order of
                                    Supreme Court.

                                    7. Subject to the aforesaid observation/direction, the application stands
                                    disposed of.


                                                                                      (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Bhaskar




Digitally signed by :-
BHASKAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad