JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 240 of 2024, under Sections 409, 420 IPC, Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the applicant was working as a Manager in the Bank. It was found that he disbursed loan against the guidelines for sanctioning loan. The loan was sanctioned, not at the strength of valid documents but based on false and forged documents. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is still serving in the bank; he did not commit any forgery; even the departmental inquiry has yet not been concluded. He would submit that as per prosecution, one Surendra Singh transferred Rs.1 Lakh in the account of the applicant. He would submit that the applicant has personal relations with Surendra Singh and on 03.09.2022, the applicant has transferred Rs.1,80,000/- in the account of Surendra Singh and thereafter, Surendra Singh has deposited money in the account of the applicant. It is argued that had applicant been taking money for loan transaction from Surendra Singh, it is Surendra Singh, who were to transfer money initially in the account of the applicant, which, it is argued is not the case. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that an irregularity was committed in the disbursement of the loan and Surendra Singh has transferred the money in the account of the applicant, who was working as an intermediary in granting loans to the villagers. 6. The Court wanted to know from learned State counsel as to who made first transaction in the accounts? Whether the applicant transferred Rs.1,80,000/- on 03.09.2022 in the account of Surendra Singh first or thereafter, Surendra Singh made the transfer or initially, Surendra Singh deposited the money in the account of the applicant? 7. Learned State counsel would submit that initially, it is the applicant who has transferred Rs.1,80,000/- in the account of the applicant. 8. It is the stage of anticipatory bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 9. 8. It is the stage of anticipatory bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 9. If the applicant was taking money from Surendra Singh, why should he transfer money initially in the account of Surendra Singh and what was that money for? 10. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that this is a case fit for anticipatory bail. 11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 12. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (“AO”). In addition to it, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation. (ii) The applicant shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court. (iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the AO. The passport may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case, the applicant does not have passport, he shall give an undertaking to that effect to the AO. (v) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above.