High CourtsSingle Bench

Neeraj Kumar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 20 February 2026 · Citation: (2026) 02 MP CK 1801

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 480(3), 482, 482(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 · Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Petition No. 51126 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 504 words

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J

1.

This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant/accused under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.329/2025, registered at Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 & 120-B of IPC and under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2.

As per the prosecution story, initially the police has registered Crime No. 49/2025 on 05-02-2025 and arrested the present applicant. The time of incident is shown as from 01-04-2018 to 08-01-2025 and that reimbursement by filing forged bill the present applicant, allegation was under the head of medical one Harsh Wankhede and other accused persons has taken various money in their account. Therefore, the offence has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons under aforesaid sections.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that initially one FIR was lodged alleging preparation of forged medical bills. In that case applicant and other co-accused have been granted regular conditional bail. Thereafter, another FIR has been registered alleging similar kind of allegation of preparation of forged medical claims. He argued that on similar allegation subsequent FIR has been registered which is contrary to the judgment of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala - AIR 2001 SC 2637. There is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. In these circumstances, applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for State has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants and prayed for it's rejection and submitted that the applicant and other co-accused persons are police officers and there were serious allegation of claim of forged medical bills. There is possibilities of influencing the witnesses and tampering the evidence.

5.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and submissions put forth by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant is a police officer and there is no likelihood of his absconding, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is allowed. It is directed that if the applicant is arrested by the police he they shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.

6.

Applicant shall abide by the following conditions under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S.:-

(a) Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

(b) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to complainant or witnesses;

(c) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(d) He shall not commit similar offence, of which, he is accused or suspected.

(e) He will further abide by the condition enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 480 of the B.N.S.S.

Certified copy as per rules.