High CourtsSingle Bench

Sandeep Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 20 February 2026 · Citation: (2026) 02 MP CK 1797

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 34, 406, 409, 420
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Petition No. 3744 Of 2026
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

14 paragraphs · 454 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.101/2025, registered at Police Station Raneh, District Damoh (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 34 of IPC.

2.

As per the prosecution story, on 24.10.2025, the District Project Manager submitted a written complaint against the present applicant wherein it was alleged that loans were withdrawn through Self-Help Groups and government funds were misappropriated. 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 applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged against the applicant that he was the Incharge Block Manager and he had transferred the account of the self help group to the other accounts. Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant is incorrect. It was not his duty to verify the transfer. 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.

5.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation of the applicant and also the submission that departmental action has also been taken and his services were terminated which has been stayed by the High Court. Admittedly, applicant is a Government Servant. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

6.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 then he 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.