Allahabad High Court

RAVI SHANKAR VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court entertained an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by Ravi Shankar Verma, a 64‑year‑old former manager accused of sanctioning fake scholarships and misappropriating Rs.26,700. The FIR, lodged in 2009, alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, but the investigation had been pending for 17 years and the applicant had cooperated throughout. The State opposed bail, arguing that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR and distinguishing him from an 80‑year‑old co‑accused who had been granted bail. The Court noted the applicant’s advanced age, clean criminal record, lack of any allegation of absconding, and the fact that a similarly situated co‑accused had been granted bail. Accordingly, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail with standard conditions and directed that the applicant be released forthwith upon arrest.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC despite the serious nature of the alleged offences.
Whether the applicant’s age, clean record and cooperation justify bail, distinguishing him from the co‑accused.
Whether the pending investigation and specific naming in the FIR preclude anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
fraud
embezzlement
age factor
cooperation with investigation
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9983 of 2026

Ravi Shankar Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Chandra Solanki
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 as well as perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.0673 of 2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 120B I.P.C., Police-Station Civil Lines, District Etawah, with a
prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his
arrest in the abovementioned case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 64
years old man. The allegation against the applicant is that at the relevant
point of time he was the Manager of an institution where fake scholarship
was supposedly awarded to non-existing students and the same was
misappropriated by the applicant. The embezzled amount is Rs.26,700/-.
Learned counsel states that the FIR was lodged in the year 2009. The
investigation has been pending for the past 17 years and now once the
investigation has been transferred to the Crime Branch, Criminal
Investigation Department, the police is trying to arrest the applicant even
when he has been cooperating with the investigation. Learned counsel has
stated that similarly situated co-accused Chandrika Prasad has been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court in NABAIL No.9321 of 2026. The
applicant has no criminal history.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has
NABAIL No. 9983 of 2026
2

contended that the co-accused Chandrika Prasad was an 80 years old man
and one of the considerations for granting anticipatory bail was that he
was 80 years old. The applicant has been specifically nominated in the
FIR and he may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.

6. The FIR was lodged on 19.11.2009 and the investigation is still
pending. There is no allegation against the applicant of either absconding
or not cooperating with the investigation. The applicant is an old man
aged about 64 years having no other criminal history. Co-accused
Chandrika Prasad, who was also the Manager of an institution, has been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The case of the applicant stands on
a similar footing.

7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge 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-Ravi Shankar Verma, he
shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail
on furnishing a personal bond and surety 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. 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;
NABAIL No. 9983 of 2026
3

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 24, 2026
A. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…