Allahabad High Court

AMARJEET KUMAR MANOJversusSTATE OF UP

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC despite the pending charges.

Summary

The applicant, a Branch Manager of UP Gramin Bank, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case alleging misappropriation of funds from 51 bank accounts, with charges under Sections 420, 120B and 409 of the IPC. He contended that the co‑accused siphoned the money, that he was cleared in a departmental inquiry, and that he has no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual background. The Court noted the unexplained delay between the alleged incident (January 2023) and the FIR (June 2026) but, considering the applicant’s clean record and departmental exoneration, decided to grant anticipatory bail without commenting on the merits. The bail was conditioned on personal bond, cooperation with police, non‑intimidation of witnesses, and restriction on leaving India.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 420, 120B and 409 IPC.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
Whether the applicant’s exoneration in a departmental inquiry and lack of criminal antecedents justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 409, 420

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
bank fraud
misappropriation of funds
delay in FIR
no criminal antecedents
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9154 of 2026

Amarjeet Kumar Manoj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 97 of 2026, under Section 420, 120B, 409
IPC, Police Station- Nageena, District Bijnor, with a prayer to enlarge
him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the
above-mentioned case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a
Branch Manager of the UP Gramin Bank, Branch Ahmadpur, Sadat. The
allegation is of the applicant and the co-accused, Vikas Kumar, Jitendra
Singh, misappropriating the money from 51 bank accounts. The Learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted that the money was siphoned off
by the co-accused, Vikas Kumar, and in the departmental inquiry, he was
found to be the main culprit. The money, which is said to have been
misappropriated, has already been recovered. The applicant has no
criminal antecedents. The similarly situated co-accused, Jitendra Singh,
who was Assistant Branch Manager, has already been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court in CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY
BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. 7050 of 2026.

4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail, but does not dispute the factual submissions made by Learned
NABAIL No. 9154 of 2026
2

counsel for the applicant.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material brought on the record.

6. The applicant is stated to be the Branch Manager of UP Gramin Bank,
where money has been misappropriated from 51 bank accounts. The
incident is said to have been taken place on 11.01.2023, but the FIR came
to be lodged on 01.06.2026. No satisfactory explanation of the delay in
lodging of the FIR has been given. The applicant claims to have been
exonerated in the departmental inquiry and is presently serving in UP
Gramin Bank, Rehra Branch, Alipur Chopla, District Amroha. The
applicant has no criminal antecedents.

7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to
enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Amarjeet Kumar Manoj, he
shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail
on furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
concerned with the following conditions:-

i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;

ii. that 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer;

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
NABAIL No. 9154 of 2026
3

witness;

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 8, 2026
Sartaj

Digitally signed by :-
SARTAJ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…