Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 149120 (ALL)

VIPIN KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO

NABAIL/810/2025 · 2025-07-10

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39405 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 810 of 2025 Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tripathi,Rajan Mishra,Sandhya Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 226 of 2025, under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2) of B.N.S., P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that a sum of Rs. 52,43,949/- from the post office has been usurped by the applicant while hatching conspiracy with the co-accused Deepu Yadav. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged. He is himself a victim of the alleged scam. With regard to his grievance, he has made complaint to the higher authorities, but no information has been given in this regard. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that 17 accounts have been misappropriated. All these accounts have been closed prior to maturity and the amount has been credited in the account of the accused-applicant and, therefore, public money has been usurped. Hence, it is not a case of false implication. Perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that the applicant is the beneficiary, as per the prosecution case. The amount appears to have been received by the applicant in his account by way of credit or cash. The passbooks of the alleged 17 accounts also do not appear to have been issued by the Department. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicant has been falsely implicated. In view of the above, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Shravan Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench