Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28320 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1088 of 2025 Applicant :- Kartik Rashaniya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Byas Kumar Prasad,Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Sri Rahul Chaudhary has filed vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 2 today, taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 23 of 2023, under Sections 420, 409 I.P.C., Police Station Medical, District Meerut. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant was appointed on the post of Field Collection Executive. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant had collected E.M.I of loan from 11 persons and has not deposited the amount to the respondent company and the same has been embezzled. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that from the perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the applicant is named in the FIR and the allegation made in the FIR, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant, the victims in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has supported the version of FIR. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 6. The object of anticipatory bail is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 7. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 8. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 RPD Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad