HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 12278 of 2024 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sunil Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 NABAIL No. 12278 of 2024 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad