Allahabad High Court
SATENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
Satendra, a branch manager of a finance company, was charged under Section 316(5) of the B.N.S. for allegedly embezzling Rs. 8,30,682. He contended that the allegations were false and that he had himself filed an FIR against the company's collection agents for misappropriating funds, indicating his innocence. The prosecution opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions raised by the applicant. The court noted the applicant's lack of prior criminal record, his prior bail in a related case, and the fact that he had been in custody for over six months. Considering these circumstances, the judge concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail pending trial. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on personal bond with two sureties and imposed standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite allegations of misappropriation of public money.
- Whether the applicant's prior filing of an FIR against collection agents and absence of criminal history justify granting bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed on bail are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Subjects
- bail
- misappropriation
- embezzlement
- finance company
- criminal procedure
- Section 316(5) B.N.S.
- personal bond
- sureties
- trial court appearance
- tampering with evidence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4000 of 2026
Satendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhiraj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri R.N. Pandey, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 402 of 2025, under Sections
316(5) B.N.S., Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar,
during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was
manager in a finance company and as per allegation he along with
collection agents misappropriated huge public money and as per
specific allegation applicant embezzled amount ofRs. 8,30,682/-
but entire allegation levelled against the applicant are totally false.
4. He further argued, actually collection agents after collecting the
money from the fields were having responsibility to deposit the
same in the company but when applicant came to know that after
collecting money they are not depositing the money then on
14.5.2025 he lodged F.I.R. against the collection agents which has
been annexed at page 57 and after three months Unit Manager
lodged F.I.R. of the present case also against the applicant and
this fact clearly suggests that applicant is innocent and he was not
having any concern with the misappropriation committed by
collection agents.
5. He next argued, however, in the case in which F.I.R. was lodged
by applicant, during investigation applicant has also been made
accused but in that case he has been released on bail and his bail
order has been annexed along with the instant bail application.
6. He further argued apart from above case applicant is having no
BAIL No. 4000 of 2026
2
criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since
1.11.2025 i.e. for last more than six months.
7. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail
but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned
counsel for applicant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case.
9. However,as per allegation applicant was Branch Manager in a
finance company and he has misappropriated amount of more than
8 lacs but there is also allegation in the F.I.R. of the present case
against the agents of the company. It reflects F.i.R. of the present
case was lodged on 25.9.2025 by Unit Manager of the company
and before this F.I.R. on 14.6.2025 applicant himself has lodged an
F.I.R. against collection agents of the company with the allegation
that they after receiving money from the field are not depositing the
same. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned
counsel for applicant with regard to the innocence of the applicant
cannot be ruled out.
10. Further, however, it reflects in the F.I.R. lodged by the
applicant subsequently applicant has also been made accused but
in that he has been released on bail by this Court.
11. Further, apart from above case applicant is not having any
other criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since
01.11.2025 i.e. for last more than six months.
12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on
bail.
13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant -Satendra be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the
following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates
fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
BAIL No. 4000 of 2026
3
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the
prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this
Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to
the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail
application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 6, 2026
Kumar Manish
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…