Allahabad High Court
SUNIL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that, given the applicant’s refund of the misappropriated amount, lack of flight risk and cooperation, anticipatory bail should be granted despite the seriousness of the charges.
Summary
The applicant, a government servant, was accused of embezzling Rs.2,39,498 under IPC sections 420 and 409. He had refunded the entire amount to the State exchequer and had previously been granted interim anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court examined the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s antecedents, his lack of flight risk, and his cooperation with the investigation, referring to the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra. Finding that the applicant satisfied the criteria for anticipatory bail, the Court allowed the application, subject to the conditions of the earlier order. The prosecution was directed to seek cancellation if any condition is breached.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused government servant charged with embezzlement under IPC sections 420 and 409.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 409, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- embezzlement
- government servant
- IPC 420
- IPC 409
- CrPC 482
- flight risk
- refund
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 12278 of 2024
Sunil Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.D. Shukla, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.
163 of 2024 under Sections 420, 409 IPC, Police Station Narsena, District
Bulandshahar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released
on bail.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a government
servant and as per allegations in the FIR, he is said to have embezzled public money to
the tune of Rs.2,39,498/-. It is further submitted that entire amount has been refunded
to the State Exchequer by the applicant and he is not at flight risk. It is further
submitted that applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 17.1.2025 and he has been co-operating in the
investigation/trial. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his
credit and he undertakes to co-operate during trial and to appear as and when required
by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he
shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. Applicant is a government servant and as per allegations in the FIR, he is said to
have embezzled public money to the tune of Rs.2,39,498/-. It is further submitted that
entire amount has been refunded to the State Exchequer by the applicant and he is not
at flight risk. Applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 17.1.2025 and he has been co-operating in the
NABAIL No. 12278 of 2024
2
investigation/trial.
8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that
while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of
accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and
that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and
the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.
9. Considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, settled principle of
law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature
of accusation, role of applicants and without expressing any opinion on merits, a case
for anticipatory bail is made out.
10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
11. In the event of arrest of the applicant Sunil Kumar involved in the aforesaid case
crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on the same terms and conditions as
directed by this Court vide order dated 17.1.2025.
12. In default of any of the conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated
17.1.2025, prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
February 25, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…