HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8225 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Mangla Prasad Rai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri B.P. Maurya, 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.453 of 2025, under Section 316(5) of B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. It has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the act of the applicant amounts to negligence and does not amount to criminal offence. It is further submitted that as per first information report, the applicant, who is Assistant Commissioner of G.S.T. is said to have made excess amount of refund to the tune of Rs.2,57,21,297/-. Out of which, only Rs.75,34,931/- is said to have been refunded under the signature of the applicant. It is further submitted that there is procedure in the G.S.T. to recover the excess amount paid to the firm and the applicant has not received any benefit from the alleged criminal act. It is further submitted that the applicant is a responsible government officer and there is no apprehension that he would escape from the process of law. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sushil .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the act of the applicant is repeated one and it cannot be said that the same is due to his negligence. 6. As per first information report. the applicant is presently posted as Assistant Commissioner of G.S.T. and the allegation is that he made excess amount of refund to the tune of Rs.2,57,21,297/-. Out of which, only Rs.75,34,931/- is said to have been refunded under the signature of the applicant to the various firms. It is further submitted that there is procedure in the G.S.T. to recover the excess amount paid to the firms and the applicant has not received any benefit from the alleged criminal act. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Sushil involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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, NABAIL No. 8225 of 2025 2 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 liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. 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. October 9, 2025 RKM NABAIL No. 8225 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad