Anticipatory bail was denied because custodial interrogation remained necessary in alleged government-fund misappropriation.

The applicant, Lalbihari Yadav, was employed as Supervisor at the Composite Liquor Shop, Wadrafnagar.

During physical verification of the shop’s stock and records for the period from 1 May 2026 to 19 June 2026, it was allegedly found that he had collected ₹7,59,720 from liquor sales but failed to deposit the amount into the Government bank account, allegedly causing wrongful loss to the Government.

Consequently, Crime No. 105/2026 was registered at Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He alleged that, before registration of the FIR, he had complained on 23 June 2026 against certain officials regarding financial irregularities, illegal collections, misappropriation, and non-functional CCTV cameras.

The State opposed the application on the grounds that the allegations involved misappropriation of Government funds, the investigation was at an initial stage, and custodial interrogation might be necessary.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with the offences alleged under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023?

Whether the nature of the allegations, the alleged misappropriation of ₹7,59,720, and the continuing investigation requiring possible custodial interrogation justified refusal of anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The alleged substantive offences were under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In deciding anticipatory bail, the Court considered the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the alleged financial loss, the stage of investigation, and whether custodial interrogation might be required.

No judicial precedent was cited or applied in the order.

Although the applicant asserted false implication, delay, a retaliatory FIR, absence of criminal antecedents, and the availability of documentary and electronic evidence, the Court gave primary weight to the seriousness of the accusation involving alleged misappropriation of ₹7,59,720 from Government collections.

The investigation was still in progress, and the State specifically submitted that custodial interrogation might be necessary.

On these circumstances, the Court held that it was not appropriate to extend the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail at that stage.

The Court expressly refrained from making any observation on the merits of the prosecution case.

The rejection was based on the seriousness of the alleged misappropriation, the ongoing investigation, and the possible need for custodial interrogation.

The Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial Court.