Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15831 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2331 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra S Singh Rathore,Abhishek Upadhyay,Atul Sharma,Bhavesh Chandel,Radhika Kheria,Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.09 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 61(1) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Mahigawan, District Lucknow. 3. As per contents of First Information Report, it has been alleged that the applicant who was employed as Technical Assistant with the Gram Panchayat concerned was instrumental in embezzling the government funds under Amrit Sarovar Yogna for creation of pond in gram panchayat concerned. Allegation has been levelled that the amount was misappropriated with regard to substandard work and payment of salaries to the muster roll employees who were in fact not employed at all. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is also submitted that the applicant being merely a contractual employee, the provisions of section 316 (5) BNS, 2023 would not be attracted at all since they pertain to criminal breach of trust by public servants. It is also submitted that with regard to section 318 (4) of BNS, a bare perusal of FIR will make it evident that allegation has been levelled against one Santosh Singh, Gram Rojgar Sewak and not the applicant. It is even otherwise submitted that recovery orders have already been passed against the applicant in departmental proceedings. It is also submitted that the aspect of work having been carried out being substandard clearly indicates that in fact the work was carried out and therefore none of sections imputed against the applicant are made out. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application with the submission that the allegations made in the FIR clearly indicate the fact of misappropriation of government funds by dishonestly inducing the amounts which were disbursed particularly with regard to substandard work being carried out and impersonation of the muster roll employee/labourers. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, upon perusal of material on record prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that there is no allegation in the FIR that no work at all having been carried out at the instance of applicant and the aspect of work carried out being substandard or not, would be subject matter of trial. The aspect of the applicant not coming in the purview of being public servant also requires consideration. The allegations so made in the FIR also appear to have been made against one Santosh Singh pertaining to remuneration being disbursed to muster roll employee/labourers. 7. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Rajesh Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Renu/- Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench