JUDGMENT :

1. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and the matter is ripe for final disposal.

2. Heard Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and Shri Ghanshyam Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

3. The instant application is being moved by the applicant, namely, Tarun Aggarwal invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime No. RC1202017A0013, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, police station C.B.I. ACB, Ghaziabad

4. From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 16.2.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2019), which read thus :

"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."

6. After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020(3) ADJ 575 in which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those pleadings/reasons in this regard, this Court is satisfied that the reasons mentioned therein are quite convincing to entertain the present anticipatory bail application before this Court itself.

7. Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

8. It is given to understand that the charge sheet has been submitted in the matter by the C.B.I. and the Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance to the offence and process have been issued against the applicant during the pendency of this anticipatory bail application.

9. The applicant-Tarun Aggarwal is an Advocate and was appointed as Standing/Additional Lawyer (panel lawyer) for the branches of Syndicate Bank in district Ghaziabad vide appointment letter dated 8.2.2014 issued by the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office Syndicate Bank, District Ghaziabad. In the loan matter, the Bank often seek a legal opinion from the panel lawyers. The applicant was given search report-cum-legal opinion in total thirteen matter of the Bank, out of which in eight his search report-cum-legal opinion found to be perfectly in order and the Bank has acted upon his report/opinion

10. It also come to the surface that during investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation has recorded the statement of another panel lawyer, namely, Amit Jain under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. as a witness, who in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. opined that out of thirteen cases, in which the applicant has given the search report-cum-legal opinion, only five matters were found to be tainted one.

11. On this factual premise, a pr