Ritik Maurya vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 10 of 2024 under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no evidence against him. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, applicant and co-accused Sanjay Sonkar have been shown as employees of Bharat Financial Inclusion, Branch Chahania and they are said to have embezzled Rs.2,62, 697/- and Rs.5,27,517/- respectively which was collected from various customers but the said amounts were not deposited in the account of the company. It is further submitted that none of the customers has taken the name of the applicant during investigation.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that he has not received instructions in the matter as yet.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant Ritik Maurya in the event of his arrest, be released on interim anticipatory bail on

¶15

NABAIL No. 2260 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

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 08.4.2026 with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and shall appear before the trial Court either in person or through counsel on each and every date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned and shall not seek any undue adjournment;

¶19

(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;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Put up this case as fresh on 08.4.2026 in top 20 cases.

¶24

In the meantime, learned AGA is directed to obtain instructions in the matter by the next date fixed.

¶25

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶26

March 10, 2026 Madhurima

¶27

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

Ritik Maurya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritik Maurya v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Deep Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandan Singh vs State of U.P.

Nasibul Hasan vs State of U.P.

Neha @ Neha Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Harpal Singh @ Haripal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimlesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.