Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Party

2. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in R.C. No. 120 of 2024 A 0008, under Sections 120B and 409 IPC, Section 66C I.T.Act, 2000 and Section 13(1)(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended 2018), Police Station CBI ACB, Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per allegation applicant was involved in alleged commission of fraud along with co- accused Mukul Singh, who was public servant and with the connivance of co-accused Mukul Singh he along with him misappropriated about Rs. Five Crores and majority of the amount were transferred by co-accused Mukul Singh in his account but as far as allegation of misappropriation of public fund is concerned, entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submits that even from the entire material available on record it reflects that co-accused Mukul Singh, who was the Bank Employee, was the principal accused and he has been released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed at page 126 of the paper book and the case of applicant is on better footing than him.

6. He further submits that majority of the embezzled amount has been returned back to the Bank.

7. He further submits that all the alleged offences are triable by 2 BAIL No. 31592 of 2025 Magistrate and applicant is in jail since 8.9.2024, i.e., for the last more than a year.

8. He further submits that even as per Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. (now Section 480 (6) BNSS) if in any case triable by Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence then a person shall be released on bail and in the present matter dates are being fixed for evidence for the last more than four months.

9. He further submits that therefore, even in view of Secion 437(6) Cr.P.C. (new corresponding Section 480(6) BNSS), applicant should be released on bail.

10. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case in which applicant and co-accused Mukul Singh embezzled about Rs. Five Crores but could not dispute the fact that applicant is not public servant and co-accused Mukul Singh was public servant and he was the person, who transferred the entire money in the account of the applicant and he has been released on bail by this Court.

12. Learned counsel for the CBI also could not dispute the fact that majority of the alleged embezzled amount has been returned to the Bank and applicant is in jail for the last more than a year and apart from the present case he is not having any previous criminal history.

13. He further could not dispute the fact that for the last more than four months dates are being fixed for evidences and, therefore, it reflects that more than two months have been passed since fixing the first date of evidence.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, as per allegation in the account of applicant co-accused Mukul Singh, who was Bank Employee, transferred huge amount of Rs. Five Crores and thereafter applicant allegedly forwarded the alleged embezzled amount in different accounts but it reflects that all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and in the present matter applicant is in 3 BAIL No. 31592 of 2025 jail since September, 2024, i.e., for the last more than a year.

16. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that from the perusal of the record it reflects that co-accused Mukul Singh appears to be principal accused and he has already been released on bail and therefore, considering these facts applicant may also be released on bail .

17. Further, as per Section 480(6) BNSS (old Section 437(6)Cr.P.C.) if in any case triable by a Magistrate an accused has been detained in jail and more than two months have been passed since first date of evidence then he should be released on bail.

18. In the instant matter admittedly for the last more than four months dates are being fixed for prosecution evidences, therefore, in the light of the statutory mandatory provisions of Section 480(6) BNSS also applicant is entitled to be released on bail as there is no good reason even in the interest of justice to deny the benefit of bail to the applicant especially considering the fact that principal accused Mukul Singh, who was even public servant has been released on bail and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

19. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Vinod Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to 4 BAIL No. 31592 of 2025 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. 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. October 15, 2025 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.) SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in R.C. No. 120 of 2024 A 0008, under Sections 120B and 409 IPC, Section 66C I.T.Act, 2000 and Section 13(1)(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended 2018), Police Station CBI ACB, Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per allegation applicant was involved in alleged commission of fraud along with co- accused Mukul Singh, who was public servant and with the connivance of co-accused Mukul Singh he along with him misappropriated about Rs. Five Crores and majority of the amount were transferred by co-accused Mukul Singh in his account but as far as allegation of misappropriation of public fund is concerned, entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submits that even from the entire material available on record it reflects that co-accused Mukul Singh, who was the Bank Employee, was the principal accused and he has been released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed at page 126 of the paper book and the case of applicant is on better footing than him.

6. He further submits that majority of the embezzled amount has been returned back to the Bank.

7. He further submits that all the alleged offences are triable by 2 BAIL No. 31592 of 2025 Magistrate and applicant is in jail since 8.9.2024, i.e., for the last more than a year.

8. He further submits that even as per Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. (now Section 480 (6) BNSS) if in any case triable by Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence then a person shall be released on bail and in the present matter dates are being fixed for evidence for the last more than four months.

9. He further submits that therefore, even in view of Secion 437(6) Cr.P.C. (new corresponding Section 480(6) BNSS), applicant should be released on bail.

10. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case in which applicant and co-accused Mukul Singh embezzled about Rs. Five Crores but could not dispute the fact that applicant is not public servant and co-accused Mukul Singh was public servant and he was the person, who transferred the entire money in the account of the applicant and he has been released on bail by this Court.

12. Learned counsel for the CBI also could not dispute the fact that majority of the alleged embezzled amount has been returned to the Bank and applicant is in jail for the last more than a year and apart from the present case he is not having any previous criminal history.

13. He further could not dispute the fact that for the last more than four months dates are being fixed for evidences and, therefore, it reflects that more than two months have been passed since fixing the first date of evidence.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, as per allegation in the account of applicant co-accused Mukul Singh, who was Bank Employee, transferred huge amount of Rs. Five Crores and thereafter applicant allegedly forwarded the alleged embezzled amount in different accounts but it reflects that all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and in the present matter applicant is in 3 BAIL No. 31592 of 2025 jail since September, 2024, i.e., for the last more than a year.

16. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that from the perusal of the record it reflects that co-accused Mukul Singh appears to be principal accused and he has already been released on bail and therefore, considering these facts applicant may also be released on bail .

17. Further, as per Section 480(6) BNSS (old Section 437(6)Cr.P.C.) if in any case triable by a Magistrate an accused has been detained in jail and more than two months have been passed since first date of evidence then he should be released on bail.

18. In the instant matter admittedly for the last more than four months dates are being fixed for prosecution evidences, therefore, in the light of the statutory mandatory provisions of Section 480(6) BNSS also applicant is entitled to be released on bail as there is no good reason even in the interest of justice to deny the benefit of bail to the applicant especially considering the fact that principal accused Mukul Singh, who was even public servant has been released on bail and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

19. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Vinod Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to 4 BAIL No. 31592 of 2025 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. 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. October 15, 2025 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.) SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad