HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8279 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Vashishth and Sri R.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 776 of 2002 under Sections 409, 406 IPC, Police Station Sadabad, District Hathra with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no offence under sections 409 and 406 of the IPC is made out against the applicant as he is not a public servant. He further submits that allegations against the applicant is that he did not distribute the wheat given to him for distribution to the beneficiaries. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, the said wheat was given to some other PDS owner for its distribution. It is further submitted that proceedings of the case were stayed by this Court. Later on, learned trial court on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, vacated the stay and the applicant came to know about the issuance of process only when non bailable warrants were issued against him. Thereafter, he moved before the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail which application was rejected. Then, the applicant moved before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramesh Kumar Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vijay Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) history to his credit. 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 and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per the FIR, 60 quintal of wheat was given to the applicant for its distribution to the beneficiaries but he did not distribute the same and the said wheat was given to some other PDS shop owner. Proceedings of the case were stayed by this Court and subsequently, learned trial court proceeded against the applicant on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. 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, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, 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 Vijay Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his NABAIL No. 8279 of 2025 2 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, 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 13, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 8279 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad