Allahabad High Court
MITHLESH KUMAR VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting bail with conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Mithlesh Kumar Verma, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case alleging criminal breach of trust under Sections 303(1) and 316(3) of the B.N.S. He claimed innocence, stating that the alleged loss arose from a truck accident and subsequent theft, and that the matter had been settled with the informant outside court. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, noting that factors such as the nature of the accusation, the accused’s antecedents, and flight risk must be considered. After evaluating the submissions and facts, the court found that the criteria for granting anticipatory bail were satisfied without expressing a view on the merits. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and specific conditions, including non‑tampering with evidence and not leaving India without permission.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC in view of the allegations under the B.N.S.
- Whether the compromise reached between the applicant and the informant affects the grant of bail
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 303(1), 316(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- criminal breach of trust
- bail conditions
- Uttar Pradesh
- compromise settlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2371 of 2026
Mithlesh Kumar Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant,
Mr. Umashankar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in
Case Crime No. 181 of 2025, Under Sections 303(1), 316(3) of B.N.S.,
Police Station Karimuddinpur, District- Ghazipur, with the prayer that in
the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
further submitted that the matter has been compromised outside the Court
between the applicant and the first informant. It is further submitted that
as per First Information Report, the applicant is said to have committed
criminal breach of trust of the goods of the first informant in
transportation. It is further submitted that the truck of the informant, by
which, the goods were transported, met with an accident, as a result of
which, the local people committed theft of the goods loaded in the said
truck. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during
trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating
agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted
anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-
operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
NABAIL No. 2371 of 2026
2
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail.
5. As per first information report, the applicant, being a truck owner, has
caused loss to the first informant in transporting his goods. Further, a
compromise has been arrived at between the applicant and the first
informant outside the Court.
6. 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, Court must consider
nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of
accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available
material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the
accused has also to be taken into consideration.
7. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding
anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role
of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Mithlesh Kumar Verma
involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the
following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear
before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court
concerned;
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer;
(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the
NABAIL No. 2371 of 2026
3
liberty of bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Court concerned.
10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty
to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted
to the applicant.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 19, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…