Suraj Saini vs State of U.P. and Another

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 680 of 2025 under Section 318(4) and 316(5) of B.N.S., Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶13

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and only allegation against the applicant is that he has confessed before the bank authorities that he has stolen one packet of gold jewellery from the vault of the bank. It is further submitted that applicant is still an employee of the bank and there is no likelihood of his fleeing away from justice. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

As per the FIR, seven packets of gold jewellery are said to have gone missing from the vault of IDFC First Bank. Four persons including the applicant are said to be the custodian of the alleged vault and internal inquiry of the bank is still continuing.

¶16

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

¶17

NABAIL No. 9012 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶20

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, let the applicant Suraj Saini in the event of his arrest, be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned till 18.12.2025 with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶23

(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶25

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶26

Put up this case as fresh on 18.12.2025.

¶27

November 13, 2025

¶28

Madhurima

¶29

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Saini v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Saini v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri Gopal vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Other

Pankaj Sharma vs Ncb

Smt. Payal Gupta vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajesh Rajput vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arman Shah vs State of U.P. and 3 Others