IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL ON THE 21stOF OCTOBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38978 of 2024
SUNIL PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Shekhar Pandey - Advocate for applicant.
Shri C.M. Tiwari - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant/accused under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest, in connection with Crime No.538/2024, registered at Police Station Nepanagar, District Burhanpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. 2 . As per prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is of making forged and fabricated documents and committing fraud with the complainant. Therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence against the applicant to connect him with the present case. No forgery was committed by the present applicant. Present applicant has been terminated
1
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
from the service. It is further submitted that whole amount has been deposited. There is no need of custodial interrogation. He has placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496. In these circumstances, applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is submitted that present applicant being public servant alongwith other co-accused have created forged and fabricated documents and on the basis of which, benefit of Government Sambal Yojna to the tune of Rs.16 lac was given to the ineligible persons. Therefore, custodial interrogation is required in the matter. In view of above, he prayed for dismissal of this anticipatory bail application.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is dismissed.
Sateesh
2
Comments