JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. Present Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Sections 420, 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in connection with the Case Crime No.40 of 2020 (Special Sessions Trial No.02 of 2023), registered at police station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. A Special Investigation Team was constituted in compliance with the order of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No.33 of 2019. Mr. G.B. Joshi, the Inspector, was appointed as a member of the said Team. He conducted enquiry. After completing the enquiry, he lodged an FIR on 29.01.2020. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the present applicant and the co-accused persons. 3. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State. 4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, submitted that the applicant, who was posted as Personal Assistant in the Office of District Social Welfare Officer, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar from August, 2004 to 26.06.2019, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. There was no policy or Government Order for conducting the physical verification of the students in respect of the institute situated outside the State of Uttarakhand. Institute in-question was located in the District Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh). 5. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, further contended that the duty of the applicant was to verify the documents of the concerned students. He had verified the documents of the concerned students in accordance with rules. He is a Government Servant, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. The present matter rests on the documentary evidence and all the evidence are in the possession of the Investigating Officer. Applicant is not a previous convict. The charge-sheet has already been filed before the court concerned, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application and submitted that the applicant did not maintain or supervise the relevant documents of the Social Welfare Department and therefore, he failed to perform his duty. However, he submitted that the Investigating Officer does not want to interrogate the applicant. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application and submitted that the applicant did not maintain or supervise the relevant documents of the Social Welfare Department and therefore, he failed to perform his duty. However, he submitted that the Investigating Officer does not want to interrogate the applicant. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant - Shivmurti is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:- (i) Applicant shall attend the Trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; (ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. (iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court. 8. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. 9. Anticipatory Bail Application (No.860 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.