ORDER Leave granted. 2. This appeal challenges the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1316/2024. 3. Apprehending arrest in connection with one of the crimes registered pursuant to FIR No. 217 of 2008 lodged with Pilkhuwa Police Station, District-Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7/13(i)D read with Section 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short). 4. Said application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 11.03.2024. Hence, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. By order dated 11.07.2024, while issuing notice, this Court granted interim protection from arrest in favour of the appellant, subject to the appellant joining the investigation. 6. We have heard learned senior counsel in support of the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-state. 7. During the course of submissions, learned senior counsel pointed out that the appellant has never been summoned during the course of investigation that he is now over 80 years of age and is suffering from dementia and other ailments and at this stage, he may be summoned for the trial, which would cause undue prejudice to him. Hence, anticipatory bail could not have been rejected by the District Court as well as the High Court. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and relief may be granted to him. 8. Learned senior counsel also brought to our notice that in the State of Uttar Pradesh till the year 2019, the relief of Anticipatory Bail was not available whereas the FIR in the instant case is dated 04.04.2008. Hence, till the year 2019, the appellant could not have availed of the relief of pre-arrest bail. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State brought to our notice the fact that on earlier occasions too, the appellant had submitted that he would surrender and seek regular bail but this has not done so. Therefore, at this stage, the undertaking(s) given by the appellant to seek regular bail cannot be brushed aside and relief of Anticipatory Bail may not be granted to him. 10. Therefore, at this stage, the undertaking(s) given by the appellant to seek regular bail cannot be brushed aside and relief of Anticipatory Bail may not be granted to him. 10. That Non Bailable Warrant and Process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have also been issued as against the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. 11. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar in light of the material on record. What is of significance is the fact that during the course of investigation, the appellant had not been summoned at all and in the circumstances, possibly for the said reason. The appellant did not also act upon the statements made by him before the High Court and the District Court that he would surrender and seek regular bail. 12. However, taking note of the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of this case, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed under Section 438 of the Code. 13. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 11.03.2024. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two like sureties. 14. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record. 15. With the aforesaid directions, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.