Allahabad High Court

RAMU AHIRWARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to specified conditions.

Summary

Ramu Ahirwar, a Panchayat Secretary, was implicated in a case alleging forged signatures of a Village Pradhan to withdraw Rs. 5,43,747, leading to a charge sheet under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 of the IPC. The applicant sought anticipatory bail, contending that an inquiry found the signatures genuine, the forensic report was pending, and he had not evaded the proceedings. The State opposed the bail, citing issued bailable warrants and alleged avoidance. The Court noted the Supreme Court precedent that criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot co‑exist, observed that the applicant was not an absconder and that the charge sheet lacked conclusive forensic evidence, and therefore granted anticipatory bail with conditions. The bail order required a personal bond, cooperation with police, and restrictions on intimidation, travel, and influencing witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the pending charge sheet and allegations of forgery.
Whether the existence of prior minor criminal antecedents precludes grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 507

Subjects

anticipatory bail
forgery
cheating
criminal breach of trust
Indian Penal Code
bail conditions
Panchayat Secretary

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9579 of 2026

Ramu Ahirwar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hans Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; and Learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 82 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 and 409 of the I.P.C., Police Station – Jalalpur, District
Hamirpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as the
applicant apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid case.

3. This is a second bail application moved by the applicant. The first bail
application was dismissed as withdrawn while granting liberty for moving
a fresh bail application after explaining the criminal antecedents as
required under Chapter XVIII Rule 18(7) of the Rules of the Court.

4. The Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a
Panchayat Secretary presently posted at Village Newriya Kaimokhar,
Block Muskura, District Hamirpur. At the relevant point of time, the
applicant was the Panchayat Secretary at Village Bhendidada. The
allegation is that the applicant had allegedly forged the signatures of the
Village Pradhan and had withdrawn Rs. 5,43,747/-. The Learned counsel
has contended that a three member committee had conducted an inquiry
in which it was found that on the cheques in question the signatures of the
Village Pradhan were genuine. The signatures, however, were to be sent
to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL) at Agra for further
confirmation and before the FSL, the Village Pradhan did not provide her
original signatures. The Learned counsel referring to an entry made in the
NABAIL No. 9579 of 2026
2

general diary of the concerned police station contends that the Village
Pradhan was reluctant to give her signatures and even the bank did not
provide the original documents and a charge sheet has been filed despite
the inquiry report without awaiting the outcome of the FSL report.

5. The Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicant had been
granted interim protection from arrest by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 23633 of 2018 till filing of a police report. The applicant, as he
was not posted at the relevant point of time at Village Bhendidada, did not
have knowledge of the filing of the charge sheet which was filed in 2019.
The applicant was not avoiding the proceedings and is ready to participate in
the same and prove his innocence before the concerned Court. The applicant
has a criminal history of one case under Sections 504, 507 I.P.C., which is a
minor case not entailing in the event of a conviction a punishment of more
than seven years. The applicant is on bail in the said case.

6. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but
does not dispute the explanation given by the applicant regarding his
criminal antecedents. Learned A.G.A. has stated that bailable warrants
have been issued against the applicant and the applicant is avoiding the
proceedings and he may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties.

8. The applicant has been summoned on a police report to face trial for
offences under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The
Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Others vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2024) 10 SCC 690 has held that an offence of
'criminal breach of trust' and 'cheating' cannot co-exist. Even otherwise,
from the three-member inquiry report dated 19.10.2016 it is clear that the
cheques in question bore the signatures of the Village Pradhan. There is
no report of the FSL regarding the signatures of the Village Pradhan
having been forged on the cheques in question. From the perusal of the
order sheet annexed, there does not appear to be any physical service of
summons and in the order sheet of 30.06.2026, it appears that the
applicant was informed of the summons on phone. In the prima facie of
the Court, although the charge sheet had been filed in the year 2019 but
the applicant does not appear to be an absconder.
NABAIL No. 9579 of 2026
3

9. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, as discussed above, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on
anticipatory bail.

10. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

11. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Ramu Ahirwar, involved
in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, on
his furnishing a personal bond and surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
concerned, with the following conditions:-

i. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;

ii. 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. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court;

iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

13. 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 23, 2026
Kushal

Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…