Bail granted in embezzlement case where entire misappropriated amount was deposited during departmental inquiry.

The applicant, a clerk in the Salary Section of the 35th Battalion, Special Armed Force, was accused of embezzling approximately ₹46,84,561/- by misappropriating GPF, NPS, and pay arrears.

It is alleged he misutilized the Drawing and Disbursing Officer’s credentials to transfer funds into his and his relatives' accounts.

Following a departmental inquiry, the applicant deposited the embezzled amount with interest into the Government Treasury.

Having been in custody since August 30, 2025, and with the investigation complete and a final report filed, the applicant sought regular bail after his first application was dismissed as withdrawn.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the completion of the investigation and the restitution of the embezzled funds.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.), which governs the discretionary power of the High Court regarding bail.

Penal provisions for Criminal Breach of Trust by a public servant (Section 409 IPC), Cheating (Section 420 IPC), and various counts of Forgery and Falsification of Accounts (Sections 467, 468, 471, and 477 IPC), alongside Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The primary principles considered were the socio-economic status of the accused, the likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the nature of evidence (documentary vs. oral).

The court noted that the investigation was concluded and the case rested primarily on documentary evidence and a money trail, reducing the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence if released.

Although the prosecution argued the gravity of the offense, the court observed that the applicant had already deposited the misappropriated funds, signifying bona fide intent.

The court highlighted that the applicant had been incarcerated for 11 months, had no prior criminal record, and possessed established family roots, making him unlikely to flee justice.

The court reasoned that the veracity of the allegations would be determined at trial, which was expected to take considerable time.

The holding was conditioned upon the execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the same amount, with specific conditions including regular court attendance and a provision that the bail becomes inoperative if further embezzlement prior to 2018 is discovered.