Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrapal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 September, 2017
(Chandra Pal Vs. State of M.P.)
1 M.Cr.C. No.9525/2017
05/09/2017
Shri Arun Pateria, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kamal Jain, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties in this first bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. and perused the case diary.
Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.17/2017 registered at Police Station Nirar, District Morena for the offence punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that the applicant who is an Assistant Secretary of the Gram Panchayat has committed embezzlement of fund of Rs. 15,60,000/along with co-accused persons. It is alleged that the applicant along with co-accused have committed the embezzlement of the funds of beneficiaries who got the amount for construction of toilets under the Swachha Bharat Mission Yojna in Gram Panchayat Tiktoli Dumdar.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality who has no criminal past alleged against him. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence and he is directly or indirectly not related with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant has deposited Rs. 5,20,000/- even then he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the concerned Engineer and CEO of Janpad Panchayat has not been made accused in the matter who are responsible for disbursement of the amount. Applicant is permanent resident (Chandra Pal Vs. State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C. No.9525/2017 of the Dist. Morena and there are no chances of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He shall abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by applicant:
1. He will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. He will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. He will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. He shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. He will not seek unnecessary adjournments during (Chandra Pal Vs. State of M.P.) 3 M.Cr.C. No.9525/2017 the trial; and
6. He will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar*