Government servants entitled to anticipatory bail on grounds of parity with the principal accused.

On July 18, 2023, an FIR (Crime No. 60/2023) was registered against Nirghat Singh Thakur for allegedly embezzling ₹31,34,332/- from the Prathmik Vanopaj Sahakari Samiti, Baniyagaon

Subsequent investigations and a departmental enquiry by the Divisional Forest Officer suggested that the applicants, who are Forest Department officials, colluded with Thakur in the misappropriation of a total sum of ₹62,68,664/-

The applicants were subsequently arrayed as accused under the IPC

The main accused, Thakur, was granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on May 6, 2024, after his initial application was rejected by the High Court

The applicants moved the present application seeking anticipatory bail

Whether the applicants are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the bail granted to the primary accused and their status as government servants

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the direction of grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest

The substantive charges were brought under Sections 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant) and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code

The Court further relied on the principle of judicial parity, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 2418 of 2024, which granted relief to the main accused in the same crime number

The Court balanced the State's allegations—that the applicants were established by an enquiry report to have divided the embezzled funds with the Samiti Manager—against the procedural history of the case.

The Court noted that the primary accused, Nirghat Singh Thakur, had already secured bail from the Hon’ble Supreme Court despite the rejection of his earlier application by the High Court

It further emphasized that the applicants are active Government servants within the Forest Department

By applying the logic that the main culprit was already at liberty and considering the applicants' professional standing, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted at this stage

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like sum

The holding was conditioned upon the applicants’ cooperation with the investigation, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or committing similar offences

The Court noted that these observations are limited to the bail application and shall not bind the trial court