Anticipatory bail granted to terminated employee accused of criminal breach of trust despite alleged confession of misappropriation.

The applicant, Rajendra Kumar Mahilange, was a supervisor at Ntex Transportation Services Private Limited, a delivery partner for Flipkart.

Following an internal investigation, the complainant (a Team Leader) alleged that the applicant failed to deposit a sum of ₹2,63,630/- collected over 2–3 days.

The applicant reportedly admitted to using the funds for personal purposes and was subsequently terminated on November 13, 2025.

Consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The applicant approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, claiming false implication based on suspicion.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the accusations and his personal circumstances.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.

Section 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which pertains to criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant.

The Court’s decision was guided by established discretionary principles—primarily the absence of criminal antecedents and the necessity of the applicant's detention in light of the fact that he was already terminated from his position.

The Court balanced the prosecution's allegations of financial misappropriation against the applicant's profile and the current status of the investigation.

While the State opposed the bail citing the applicant's admission of using the company's money for personal use, the Court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicant had already been fired from his job, suggesting a reduced risk of tampering with company records or repeating the offense within the same organization.

In exercising its discretion under Section 482 BNSS, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not necessitated by the facts and circumstances of the case.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond and one surety, subject to the conditions that he: (a) shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence; (b) shall appear before the Trial Court on every scheduled date; (c) shall provide verified identification through Aadhaar and photographs; and (d) shall not engage in similar criminal activity in the future.