Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijlal Saket (Bl Saket) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 12th OF JULY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32821 of 2022
Between:-
BRIJLAL SAKET (BL SAKET) S/O AYODHYA
PRASAD SAKET , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O TIKURI POST
SAGDA TAHSIL HUZUR P.S. UNIVERSITY SATNA,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ALABHYA BAJPAI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION CITY KOTWALI SATNA,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI S.K. SHRIVASTAVA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
T h is first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.350/2022 registered at Police Station-City Kotwali, District Satna for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC.
Counsel for the applicant submits that as per the case of prosecution, the Signature Not Verified SAN present applicant had approved the proposal and issued positive direction for Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO Date: 2022.07.13 12:44:54 IST grant of post-retiral benefit to one Shri Dwarka Prasad Saket who was 2 convicted for an offence registered against him and, therefore, according to the prosecution, he was not entitled to get anything but just to favour him, this positive direction has been issued due to which the government had suffered a loss. He further submits that approval was made somewhere in the year 2012 and now FIR got registered. He submits that under misconception, the order has been passed and, therefore, the present applicant cannot be held guilty. He, therefore, prays that the present applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, the Govt. Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that present applicant is the brother of convicted employee who got benefitted by the approval of the present applicant and this was done deliberately just to favour him and, therefore, he is not entitled to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that approval was made in the year 2012 and offence has been registered in the year 2022, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.
Signature Not VerifiedThe applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section SAN 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO Date: 2022.07.13 12:44:54 ISTCertified copy as per rules.
3(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO Date: 2022.07.13 12:44:54 IST