Dayalal And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Akhil Kumar Srivastav, J

This is the first application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.97/2020 registered at Police Station- Bahela District Balagaht for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409/34 of IPC.

It is alleged that complainant namely; Tejram and Chamrulal have made complaint under Section 156 of Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate in regard to irregularities committed by the applicants in several Panchayat works and thereby they have committed embezzlement. On the basis of aforesaid, offence has been registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have not committed any offence. The applicants are Government servants. Due to malfide intention the complainant has filed the complaint against the present applicants. The complainant Tejram is habitual of making complaint and put the pressure over the Office bearers for taking their favour. The applicants are ready to co-operate with investigation and shall abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court; hence, prays for anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the application. He further submits that custodial interrogation and seizure of various documents are required from the applicants who are Office bearers of Gram Panchayat. The applicants have committed several irregularities in Panchayat works and embezzled Panchayat fund. It is a serious offence as the applicants have misappropriated the public fund. With these submissions, prays for dismissal of the application.

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available in the PDF format.

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of the offence and taking into consideration the fact that custodial interrogation of the applicants and seizure of various documents are required. The applicants have committed financial irregularities in several Panchayat works and also embezzled the Panchayat fund. It is a case of economic offence as the applicants have misappropriated the Government fund. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Consequently, the application filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed.