Sumit Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, who was employed in Saraju Sahakari Chini Mills, Belrayan, Kheri, in the Cane Department and was entrusted with cash collection and related duties, in collusion with coaccused persons, forged signatures and prepared fabricated documents, thereby misappropriating and embezzling public funds.

¶13

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has a clean antecedent record. It is further contended that the entire alleged embezzled amount has already been deposited into the account of the sugar mill, and no outstanding liability remains against the applicant.

¶14

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned AGA opposes the bail but, on the basis of instructions, confirms that the full embezzled amount has indeed been deposited in the account of Saraju Sahakari Chini Mills, Belrayan, Kheri.

¶16

Perused the record.

¶17

A perusal of the record indicates that an amount of Rs. 15,65,140/– was

¶18

BAIL No. 11705 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

credited to the applicant’s bank account and was thereafter transferred to a property dealer, an aspect duly recorded by the Investigating Officer in Parcha No. 19. Learned AGA has confirmed that the said amount has since been returned.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts, and considering that the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate and the applicant is in custody since 09.10.2025 without any prior criminal antecedents, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶23

Let the applicant Sumit Kumar Verma, involved in Case Crime No. 83 of 2025, U/S-409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, P.S-Tikonia, DistrictLakhimpur-Kheri, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶24

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶25

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶26

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶27

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

December 11, 2025 R.C.

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sumit Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sahabuddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramtej Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Home, Lucknow

Suraj Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and 4 Other

Dharmendra Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhinandan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.