Anticipatory bail granted in employment-related misappropriation cases involving primarily documentary and verifiable evidence.

The applicant was a salesman at A. Leela Electronics.

The complainant, an accountant at the same firm, alleged that the applicant embezzled approximately Rs. 8,15,800/- by collecting payments from various clients (e.g., Pooja Novelty, Pushpa Electronic) and receiving an advance salary of Rs. 2,00,000/-, subsequently failing to deposit these funds into the firm's accounts.

Following a written complaint on February 24, 2026, an FIR was registered at Police Station Moudahapara under Section 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The applicant moved the High Court for anticipatory bail, contending that the allegations were fabricated due to professional rivalry and asserting that all business payments were conducted through bank transactions rather than cash.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in the context of alleged financial misappropriation under Section 316(4) of the BNS.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the statutory framework for the High Court to grant bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The substantive charge involved is Section 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023, concerning criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant.

The Court considered the relevance of the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents in exercising discretionary relief.

The Court noted that the dispute essentially arises from alleged misappropriation of funds during the course of employment.

The Court reasoned that because the claims are based on specific accounts and financial transactions, the evidence is primarily documentary in nature and can be effectively verified through the investigation process without requiring custodial interrogation.

The Court took into account the applicant's clean criminal record and the specific defense that transactions were bank-based, which countered the allegation of direct cash embezzlement.

Consequently, the Court found the circumstances appropriate for the protection of the applicant's liberty pending trial.

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The grant of bail is subject to several conditions, including: (a) the applicant must not influence or threaten witnesses; (b) the applicant must appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates; (c) the applicant and surety must submit verified Aadhaar details; and (d) the applicant shall not engage in similar offenses in the future.