Satendra vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.N. Pandey, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 402 of 2025, under Sections 316(5) B.N.S., Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was manager in a finance company and as per allegation he along with collection agents misappropriated huge public money and as per specific allegation applicant embezzled amount ofRs. 8,30,682/- but entire allegation levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further argued, actually collection agents after collecting the money from the fields were having responsibility to deposit the same in the company but when applicant came to know that after collecting money they are not depositing the money then on 14.5.2025 he lodged F.I.R. against the collection agents which has been annexed at page 57 and after three months Unit Manager lodged F.I.R. of the present case also against the applicant and this fact clearly suggests that applicant is innocent and he was not having any concern with the misappropriation committed by collection agents.

5. He next argued, however, in the case in which F.I.R. was lodged by applicant, during investigation applicant has also been made accused but in that case he has been released on bail and his bail order has been annexed along with the instant bail application.

6. He further argued apart from above case applicant is having no criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 1.11.2025 i.e. for last more than six months.

7. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for applicant.

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

9. However,as per allegation applicant was Branch Manager in a finance company and he has misappropriated amount of more than 8 lacs but there is also allegation in the F.I.R. of the present case against the agents of the company. It reflects F.i.R. of the present case was lodged on 25.9.2025 by Unit Manager of the company and before this F.I.R. on 14.6.2025 applicant himself has lodged an F.I.R. against collection agents of the company with the allegation that they after receiving money from the field are not depositing the same. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant with regard to the innocence of the applicant cannot be ruled out.

10. Further, however, it reflects in the F.I.R. lodged by the applicant subsequently applicant has also been made accused but in that he has been released on bail by this Court.

11. Further, apart from above case applicant is not having any other criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 01.11.2025 i.e. for last more than six months.

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

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

14. Let the applicant -Satendra 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 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

May 6, 2026

Kumar Manish