HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33848 of 2026 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel assisted by Sri Ankush Yadav and Mohd. Akif, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2026, under Section 316(5) BNS, Police Station Gwaltoli, District Central (Commissionerate) Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives. It is also submitted that the FIR came to be lodged after an unexplained delay of approximately 26 days from the alleged incident. The applicant has further been falsely implicated on account of personal animosity with the first informant. The allegations levelled against the applicant are denied and, even on the material collected during investigation, no criminal intention can prima facie be attributed to the applicant. It is submitted that after registration of the FIR, investigation commenced and, as reflected from Parcha No. 1 of the Case Diary, the Investigating Officer visited the informant at the KESCO Office, VIP Road, for recording his statement. The informant allegedly disclosed the place of occurrence and stated that the scrap had been loaded at the RPH Store, however, on the pretext of illness, he did not get his statement recorded before the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the Investigating Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankush Yadav, Mohd. Akif, Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Munna Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Officer visited the alleged place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. It is further submitted that, in the same Parcha of the Case Diary, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the Sub-Inspector under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023, wherein it was stated that on the night of 21.07.2026, information was received from the informant regarding a truck allegedly loaded with scrap. Upon reaching the spot, the informant allegedly informed him that approximately 35 tonnes of scrap had been auctioned by KESCO in favour of M/s MA Traders, out of which approximately 2,510 kg was allegedly to be delivered, whereas approximately 21.50 tonnes was found loaded in the truck. It is submitted that the truck was thereafter taken to the police station and remained there for about three days, i.e. till 24.07.2026. On that date, the Executive Engineer, KESCO submitted a written application stating that the total weight of the scrap loaded on the vehicle was 21,731 kgs and specifically informed the authorities that there was no misappropriation in the material loaded in the vehicle. The Executive Engineer consequently requested release of the vehicle, whereupon the vehicle was released from the concerned police station. A significant circumstance which goes to the root of the prosecution case is that the informant allegedly possessed knowledge regarding the quantity of scrap loaded in the truck even before the vehicle had been properly subjected to the relevant challan/weighment process. Such circumstance creates a serious doubt regarding the manner in which the prosecution version has subsequently been developed and calls for cautious consideration of the allegations at the stage of bail. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is wholly misconceived and is not supported by a consistent and unimpeachable contemporaneous record. The actual sequence of events is capable of a bona fide and completely plausible explanation. On 16.07.2026, scrap weighing 5,790 kg and 7,640 kg was dispatched to M/s MA Traders, for which the requisite gate passes, delivery challans and weighbridge challans were duly prepared. Thereafter, on 18.07.2026, a further quantity of approximately 11,565 kg was dispatched from the KESCO store/warehouse, for which the relevant documentary record was also prepared. It is submitted that 19.07.2026 being a holiday, the details relating to the scrap loaded on 18.07.2026 could not be entered into the computer system and, inadvertently, remained unentered on 20.07.2026. BAIL No. 33848 of 2026 2 Thereafter, on 21.07.2026, when the final load of approximately 10 tonnes was being dispatched to M/s M. Traders, a challan for approximately 21 tonnes was inadvertently generated. The said challan was subsequently cancelled on the very same day and a fresh challan corresponding to the actual quantity of approximately 10 tonnes was generated. Thus, the contemporaneous documentary material, including the gate passes, delivery challans and weighbridge records, furnishes a plausible explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the quantity and substantially undermines the allegation that the discrepancy was the result of any dishonest or criminal act on the part of the applicant. It is further submitted that the allegation of misappropriation is also rendered doubtful by the subsequent conduct of the competent KESCO authority. The Executive Engineer, after examining the material, submitted a written application on 24.07.2026 specifically stating that there was no misappropriation in the load and sought release of the vehicle, which was accordingly released. This subsequent official record materially supports the defence version and creates a substantial circumstance in favour of the applicant. The allegations against the applicant are therefore required to be tested during trial on the basis of admissible evidence, and the same cannot, at this stage, be treated as conclusive proof of the applicant's involvement. It is further submitted that the applicant is a Government employee and there is no reasonable apprehension of his absconding. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, except the present case. He has been in judicial custody since 18.08.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. He shall cooperate with the investigation/trial. The aforesaid submissions have been opposed by learned A.G.A., who submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage. It is further submitted that the material collected during investigation discloses the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence and that, in view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, no indulgence may be granted to the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits BAIL No. 33848 of 2026 3 of the case, this Court finds that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The applicant is in custody since 18.08.2026, has no criminal antecedents, and the vehicle in question was subsequently released on the basis of the report/application of the competent KESCO authority. The alleged discrepancy in the quantity of scrap is a matter which can be appropriately considered during trial. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Munna Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v). 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail. BAIL No. 33848 of 2026 4 It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 30, 2026 Brijesh BAIL No. 33848 of 2026 5 (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad