Parity and cooperation with investigation justify grant of anticipatory bail in alleged financial misappropriation cases.

The applicant, Pradeep Kumar Sharma, filed an application for anticipatory bail regarding Case Crime No. 75 of 2025, registered at Police Station Nehru Colony, Dehradun, under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused diverted funds amounting to Rs. 10,971.65 lakh, allocated by the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, for purposes other than the assigned work.

The applicant, a 68-year-old retired Additional General Manager, contended that the funds were utilized for departmental work, causing no loss to the Nigam.

A previous anticipatory bail application (No. 1363 of 2025) was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, on December 19, 2025.

The High Court had granted interim bail on January 2, 2026, the conditions of which the applicant had reportedly satisfied.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under the facts and circumstances of the alleged financial irregularity.

2. Whether the applicant’s age, retired status, and the principle of parity with a co-accused justify the confirmation of interim bail.

Section 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant) and Section 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects personal liberty as a precious fundamental right, asserting that such liberty should only be curtailed when imperative based on the peculiar facts of a case.

The principle of parity, noting that a co-accused with a similar role, Ram Prakash Gupta, had already been granted anticipatory bail.

The court noted that the applicant is a 68-year-old superannuated official with no prior convictions and a permanent resident of New Delhi, reducing flight risk.

The court observed that the applicant had not misused the liberty granted via the interim bail order dated January 2, 2026.

While the prosecution opposed the bail, the court found that the defense's argument—that funds were utilized within the department—merited consideration for the purpose of bail without deciding on the case's final merits.

The court balanced the gravity of the alleged Rs. 10,971.65 lakh loss with the fact that a similarly situated co-accused was already protected, concluding that further incarceration was not "imperative" under Article 21.

The court held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with two reliable sureties of the same amount, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation and no travel abroad without permission.

The court clarified that any violation of these conditions would allow the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.