1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 400 of 2018, under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC, Police Station - Quarsi, District - Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the cousin of the informant and was an employee in Axis Bank, is stated to have opened an account in his name bearing A/c No. 914010032126122 and had subsequently opened certain other accounts also which were being operated jointly by the informant and his father. In all 11 account numbers were opened in the bank. The applicant is stated to have illegally withdrawn an amount of Rs. 47,49,830/- in several transactions even during the period the father of the informant was undergoing treatment in a hospital in a serious condition. His father has subsequently expired on 07.12.2015.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further argued that the allegations are per se false. All the money is stated to have been withdrawn through cheques and the said amount is stated to have been transferred to several accounts of other coaccused persons. No source of the said amount has been mentioned in the FIR. It is not mentioned anywhere that the applicant had withdrawn the amount which was deposited by the informant or his deceased father.

6. It is further argued that the applicant had no knowledge of the instant FIR being instituted against him. The FIR is itself delayed by about two years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant has complied with the provisions of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. during investigation. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

8. Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Supreme Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023) 8 SCC 632 has stated that once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Thus, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.

9. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court.

10. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Raman Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

i. that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

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

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

13. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.