Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghu Jaya Shetti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22454
1 MCRC-40506-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40506 of 2025
RAGHU JAYA SHETTI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Dhengula - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - PP for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.390/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Datia (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 406, 409, 120-B of IPC and Section 5(1)& 6(1) of M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The present applicant has no relation with the companies which have been reflected in the FIR viz. Greenage Food Pre-product Limited; Pincon Infrastructure Limited; L.R.N Finance Limited; LRN Limited; ASK Finance Limited; Utkal Multistate Limited; and Universal Multi State Limited.
It is submitted that the trial court has ignored the fact that the applicant Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 9/19/2025 7:07:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22454 2 MCRC-40506-2025 is not the Director or Manager in the company and he never induced any person for investment. His job was to work as an investor for the company, he never visited Datia or never asked anybody to invest. There is nothing against the Applicant to be recovered and to ask in the present case. He is ready and willing to abide by any condition which may be imposed by the Court. Conclusion of trial will take time. It is further submitted that the co- accused person, Binay Singh was granted bail vide order dated 10.09.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No.19428/2024 and Hari Singh vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in SLP(Crl) No.146621/2014. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application on the ground that the name of co-accused Binay as an office holder was not found place in the F.I.R. and since he was not the officer/employer of the Company, therefore, he has been granted bail. So far as Hari Singh is concerned, who was a Director of the company, was granted regular bail, since charge sheet was filed against him, but so far as the present applicant is concerned, this is an anticipatory bail and his name has been written in the F.I.R. and direct role of the applicant is reflected from the material available in the case diary, he was the authorised signatory of the company in the HDFC Bank, thus, was directly involved in money transactions. The amount involved in the incident is more than 10-12 crores. While referring the page of case diary, it is also submitted that in the account of Universal Multi-State Credit Cooperative Society Ltd, total amount of 10,19,17,418/- has been deposited, which had later been transferred by the applicant, thus, there is Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 9/19/2025 7:07:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22454 3 MCRC-40506-2025 ample evidence on record against the present applicant. The case of the present applicant is different from co-accused Binay and Hari Singh, who have been granted bail. There are criminal antecedents against the applicant. Hence prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that case of the present applicant is not similar to that of co-accused Binay and Hari, who had been enlarged on bail. No documents was there on record in relation to co-accused Binay of his posting as a Director and official of the Pincon Group of Companies and Hari Singh was released on regular bail. More over there is direct involvement of the applicant in the said offence in which the offence has been committed at large level.
Having considered the attending facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the gravity of the offence but without commenting upon merits of the case, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.
The bail application of the applicant is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 9/19/2025 7:07:03 PM