Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Avanish Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.168 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 111(2) of BNS and 3/4 U.P. Protection of Interest of Depositor in Financial Establishment, 2016, P.S. Kotwali, District Budaun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. An F.I.R. was lodged with the allegation that the present applicant grabbed a huge amount of money by playing fraud with innocent depositors / investors on the direction of Directors of Amar Jyoti Company and big fraud has been committed by the present applicant. Investigation in the matter is going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is also submitted that the applicant is having absolutely no role in commission of the alleged crime. Applicant was working only an Agent in the said Company. It is further submitted that in some other cases the applicant was also implicated by the prosecution whereas interim protection has been granted to the co-accused/ Directors of the Company in case crime no. 168 of 2025. Criminal 2 NABAIL No. 9504 of 2025 history of three cases of the applicant has been sufficiently explained. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It is also not clear as to what amount of money was grabbed by the present applicant. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that by playing fraud with innocent depositors / investors the Company wherein the present applicant is working as an employee grabbed huge amount of money. Applicant also played effective role in commission of the alleged crime.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It appears that investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O. It also appears that the applicant is working as an Agent in the Company in question and no effective role was played by him in the alleged crime.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood influencing course investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

9. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of 3 NABAIL No. 9504 of 2025 our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

10. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 193 of BNSS before the Competent Court.

11. The application is allowed accordingly.

12. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, 4 NABAIL No. 9504 of 2025 the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 18, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Avanish Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.168 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 111(2) of BNS and 3/4 U.P. Protection of Interest of Depositor in Financial Establishment, 2016, P.S. Kotwali, District Budaun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. An F.I.R. was lodged with the allegation that the present applicant grabbed a huge amount of money by playing fraud with innocent depositors / investors on the direction of Directors of Amar Jyoti Company and big fraud has been committed by the present applicant. Investigation in the matter is going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is also submitted that the applicant is having absolutely no role in commission of the alleged crime. Applicant was working only an Agent in the said Company. It is further submitted that in some other cases the applicant was also implicated by the prosecution whereas interim protection has been granted to the co-accused/ Directors of the Company in case crime no. 168 of 2025. Criminal 2 NABAIL No. 9504 of 2025 history of three cases of the applicant has been sufficiently explained. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It is also not clear as to what amount of money was grabbed by the present applicant. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that by playing fraud with innocent depositors / investors the Company wherein the present applicant is working as an employee grabbed huge amount of money. Applicant also played effective role in commission of the alleged crime.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It appears that investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O. It also appears that the applicant is working as an Agent in the Company in question and no effective role was played by him in the alleged crime.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood influencing course investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

9. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of 3 NABAIL No. 9504 of 2025 our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

10. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 193 of BNSS before the Competent Court.

11. The application is allowed accordingly.

12. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, 4 NABAIL No. 9504 of 2025 the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 18, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)