Anticipatory bail is maintainable for a watchman despite allegations of embezzlement involving public distribution system stocks.

The applicant, a watchman earning ₹12,000 per month at the Aadivasi Seva Sahkari Samiti, Korkoma, sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 88/2026.

The prosecution alleged that an inspection by the Food Inspector on November 29, 2025, revealed embezzlement and diversion of 914.87 quintals of rice, sugar, and chana valued at approximately ₹39,71,598/- from a Government Fair Price Shop between 2024 and 2026.

The applicant and a co-accused Director were named in the FIR lodged on February 7, 2026, for criminal breach of trust and common intention.

The applicant contended he was a mere employee with no role in inventory management or distribution.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS despite the allegations of large-scale embezzlement of ration materials.

2. Whether the ingredients of Section 316(5) of the BNS (Criminal breach of trust by a public servant, etc.) are prima facie attracted given the applicant’s role as a watchman in a cooperative society.

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

It considered Sections 3(5) (common intention) and 316(5) (punishment for criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant or agent) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court further relied on the settled legal principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception".

The Court examined the applicant's specific job responsibilities, noting his contention that as a security guard, he lacked "dominion" over the property, a prerequisite for criminal breach of trust.

It observed that the cooperative society functioned as an independent body rather than a direct government department, casting doubt on the applicability of Section 316(5) BNS to a humble employee.

The Court found that the allegations against the applicant were "vague and omnibus" and that the prosecution failed to produce material showing his direct involvement in stock registers or distribution.

Given that the applicant is a permanent resident with no flight risk, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted under the current facts and circumstances.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon executing a personal bond and one local surety, subject to conditions: he must not influence witnesses, must appear for all trial dates, must not commit similar future offences, and must provide verified identification (Aadhar card).

The Court clarified that this order does not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case.