Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22017 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1212 of 2025 Applicant :- Ranjeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.84 of 2024, under Sections 316(5) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Dheena, District Chandauli. 3. 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. Allegation in the FIR is that the applicant was an employee of Micro Finance Company Ltd and embezzled an amount of Rs.8.04,261/- and absconded. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prima-facie allegation alleged in the FIR against the applicant is not supported by any evidence. Applicant has not committed any type of financial irregularities nor ran away after taking money. 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. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Ranjeet Kumar, involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected. 9. Considering the aforesaid alternative prayer of the applicant, it is directed that if applicant surrenders before the concerned court below within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law. 10. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad