ROHIT @ JAIHINDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 8559 of 2026

Rohit @ Jaihind
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                   :   Satya Prakash Rathor
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   G.A.

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the

applicant in Case Crime No.130 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 338,

340(2), 336(3), 61(2) BNS, P.S.- Dilari, District- Moradabad, with a

prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his

arrest in the above-mentioned case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that although the applicant

is named in the FIR, his name has surfaced in the confessional statement

of co-accused Ashraf Ali and Vivek, who have been arrested by the

police.The allegation is of the applicant being a member of a gang which

entices people with promises of getting them government jobs and used to

cheat people by making fake ID cards and fake joining letters. Learned

counsel for the applicant states that government jobs cannot be obtained

on payment of money. The allegations made in the FIR appear to be

false.The police has lodged the FIR on an application given by a Sub

Inspector of Police. There is no complainant who came forward seeking

police intervention. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
                                                     NABAIL No. 8559 of 2026
                                2


4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory

bail and has contended that during investigation many people have come

forward and have complained that the co-accused Ashraf Ali and Vivek

have cheated them out of huge sums of money on the promise of getting

them government jobs. Learned A.G.A., however, has not disputed the

claim of the applicant that he has no criminal antecedents.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the

parties and perused the material brought on the record.

6. Except the confessional statement of the co-accused, at present there

does not appear to be any direct evidence of the applicant taking money

for the purpose of securing government jobs. Even otherwise, it is a

matter of fact that government jobs cannot be obtained on payment of

money.There does not appear to be any police action against the persons

complaining of having paid money to secure such government jobs,

which in itself is an admission of trying to secure jobs by unlawful means.

The applicant has no criminal antecedents.


7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to

enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant

is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Rohit @ Jaihind, he shall be

released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on

furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court

concerned with the following conditions:-
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 8559 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police

                                    officer as and when required;

                                    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;

                                    iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission

                                    of the Court;

                                    iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution

                                    witness;

                                    10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned

                                    shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

                                    11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively

                                    for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be

                                    considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.


                                                                                      (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Sachin




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad