Court cites lack of specific responsibility, absence of criminal history, and prior bail to co-accused as reasons for granting bail.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has granted anticipatory bail to Sarita Devi, a Gram Pradhan, who was implicated in a forgery and misappropriation case related to the mid-day meal scheme. The bail was granted by Justice Rajeev Bharti under Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 538 of 2026.
The case pertains to an FIR registered on November 26, 2025, under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201, at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur. The FIR alleged a criminal conspiracy involving forgery of government records and misappropriation of funds intended for the mid-day meal scheme, causing operational difficulties in several schools.
Sarita Devi's counsel argued her innocence, emphasizing that she was falsely implicated. Despite being named among 44 individuals in the FIR, the counsel highlighted that Sarita Devi, as Gram Pradhan, had no specific duty or authority under the Mid-Day Meal Rules, 2015. The rules clearly designate the Headmaster or Headmistress as responsible for utilizing funds in the scheme's continuation, not the Gram Pradhan. Additionally, co-accused Firoz Ahmad's statement named other individuals in the conspiracy but did not implicate Sarita Devi.
The court noted the absence of any criminal history against Sarita Devi and the fact that several co-accused, including government officials and suppliers, had already been granted bail by the court. Taking these factors into account, the court decided to grant anticipatory bail to Sarita Devi, subject to several conditions. These include refraining from tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, and not traveling abroad without court permission. The trial court retains the liberty to revoke the bail should there be any violation of these conditions.
This judgment underscores the court's consideration of individual responsibilities under statutory rules and the need to protect the liberty of individuals who may be wrongfully implicated without substantive evidence.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail granted to Gram Pradhan accused of forgery and misappropriation in mid-day meal scheme, considering absence of specific responsibility, no prior criminal history, and co-accused already granted bail.
Statutory provision(s): Section 438 of CrPC, Section 482 of BNSS, Mid-Day Meal Rules, 2015 Rule 7(2), Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 of IPC.
Sarita Devi v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2891808
