Anticipatory bail granted to treasurer in embezzlement case citing parity and nature of organizational dispute.

The applicant, a Government Lecturer and former Central Treasurer of the Akhil Bhartiya Aghariya Samaj, sought anticipatory bail following an FIR registered under Sections 3(15) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The complainant, the current National President of the society, alleged that the applicant and five others committed financial irregularities and embezzled social donations totaling ₹82,25,347.72 by preparing forged vouchers during the construction of Shri Krishna Dham Mandir.

The FIR was registered on 28.02.2026 pursuant to a direction by the JMFC Basna under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

The applicant contended that the allegations arose from internal factional rivalry, that his role was limited to ministerial accounting, and that all accounts up to March 2024 were duly audited.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the nature of the allegations and the principle of parity with co-accused persons.

The Court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Section 438 CrPC), which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The court also considered the substantive offences under Sections 3(5) [common intention] and 318(4) [cheating] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The court applied the principle of parity, noting that similarly situated co-accused persons (Bhuwneshwar Prasad Patel, Harprasad Chaudhary, Gopal Nayak, and Deendayal Patel) had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same Court in MCRCA Nos. 489 of 2026 and 456 of 2026.

The Court analyzed the facts and circumstances, noting that the dispute appeared to be organizational in nature, arising from internal rivalry within the registered society.

The Court took cognizance of the applicant’s submission that he was a government servant with no prior criminal antecedents and that he had already handed over audited records to the new committee.

Critically, the Court observed that four other co-accused persons facing similar allegations had been granted anticipatory bail by the Court on 02.04.2026.

The Court reasoned that since the investigation and trial were likely to take considerable time and there was no immediate risk of the applicant absconding, the deprivation of liberty was not warranted at this stage.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition against committing similar offences in the future.