HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32458 of 2026 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned counsel for the Bank and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the accused- applicant, for being enlarged on bail, in Case Crime No. 202 of 2024, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah, during pendency of trial. The first bail application, being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23712 of 2025, moved on behalf of the applicant, along with the bail applications moved on behalf of other co- accused, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.2.2026. 3. The new ground raised by the applicant for seeking enlargement on bail is that the charges have been framed on 17.4.2026 and after elapse of nearly five months thereafter, trial of the case did not make any progress. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the applicant had history of cervical pain and epileptic seizures (fits), leading her to unconsciousness. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant, who is a lady and is in jail since 27.9.2024, may be given benefit of the provisions of Section 437 CrPC. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank and learned AGA have submitted that the applicant is an accused of having embezzled the funds, along with other co-accused, to the tune of Rs. 54,18,66,865/- in totality and first bail application of the applicant, along with other co-accused, was rejected on merits. 5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, nature of offence, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aviral Pandey, Mohit Singh, Ram Kesh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Qamar Ali Jafri, Satyam Singh, Vineet Vikram Smt. Sunita .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 437 CrPC for the reason and that the role of every accused is distinguishable from other co-accused, as much as, the amount, allegedly misappropriated and attributed to each and every co-accused, the post, position and rank, such as, being in the lower rank of the office, being managerial in capacity, dealing with loan amount, some co-accused being private individuals and businessmen etc. Thus, clearly distinguishing the role of the present applicant from other co-accused, as well as taking into consideration the ailment of the applicant, this Court is of the view that she is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendecny of trial. 6. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, let the applicant Sunita be released on bail in the aforementioned case crime on her 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 continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release; ii. She will not tamper with the witnesses.; and iii. She will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period. 7. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before those are accepted. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail. September 11, 2026 HR BAIL No. 32458 of 2026 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad