Smt Jyotsna Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 721 MP

                               1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     MCRC No.11885/2021
            Smt. Jyotsna Chaturvedi vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated : 15.03.2021

      Shri V.D. Sharma, Counsel for the applicant.

      Shri     B.P.S.    Chauhan,       Public   Prosecutor   for   the

respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This First Application under Section 438 of CrPC has been

filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime

No.210/2017 registered at Police Station Noorabad, District Morena

for offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

applicant was working as Branch Manager of Madhya Pradesh

Gramin Bank, Branch Noorabad, District Morena and a false report

has been lodged against her that after her transfer by order dated

13.10.2014 she did not hand over the keys as well as the charge of

her post and when the almirahs were broke open after following due

process of law, it was found that various valuable securities including

adhesive stamps of Rs.5,50,000/- (it has been mentioned as 5500/- in

the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.) were also missing

apart from various cheques as well as valuable securities. It is

submitted that in fact the FIR in question has been lodged by way of

counterblast because the applicant had lodged a FIR against the Bank

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.11885/2021 Smt. Jyotsna Chaturvedi vs. State of M.P.

officials for offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 506, 509 of IPC.

However, by judgment dated 28.11.2020 passed by JMFC, Morena in

RCT No.1312/2015 all the persons who were arrayed as accused

have been acquitted.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

applicant was never summoned in RCT No.1312/2015, therefore, she

was not examined by the prosecution. Although the applicant had

engaged her private counsel to assist the Public Prosecutor, but it

appears that even the counsel for the applicant never informed about

the date of appearance before the Trial Court. It is further submitted

that although the husband of the applicant had also appeared as a

witness in the trial on three occasions but his evidence was not

recorded on one pretext or the other. It is further submitted that the

applicant was never informed about the summons/bailable

warrants/warrants and, therefore, her absence before the Trial Court

was bonafide.

Per contra, the application is opposed by the counsel for the

respondent/State. By referring to the order sheet dated 30.1.2020

passed in RCT No.1312/2015, it is submitted by the counsel for the

State that the applicant herself has filed the copies of order sheets and

from the order-sheet dated 30.1.2020 it is clear that the arrest warrant

issued against the applicant was returned back on the ground that she

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.11885/2021 Smt. Jyotsna Chaturvedi vs. State of M.P.

is absconding in view of the registration of Crime No.210/2017.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant in compliance of order dated 3.3.2021 has filed

the complete order sheets of RCT No.1312/2015. From the order

sheet dated 18.8.2017 it is clear that the applicant had engaged a

private counsel and an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.

was allowed and the private counsel engaged by the applicant was

permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor. Thus it is clear that the

applicant was aware of the proceedings which were pending in RCT

No.1312/2015. Furthermore, the husband of the applicant had also

appeared before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the submission made by the

counsel for the applicant that she was not aware of the

summons/bailable warrants/warrants which were issued against her

cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the report submitted by the

prosecution that the applicant is absconding as she is wanted in

Crime No.210/2017 appears to be proper.

Once the applicant herself did not appear before the Trial Court

in RCT No.1312/2015, then she cannot claim that FIR in question

has been lodged by way of counterblast. Further, if the FIR lodged by

the applicant in RCT No.1312/2015 is considered in the light of the

allegations made in the present case, then it is clear that according to

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.11885/2021 Smt. Jyotsna Chaturvedi vs. State of M.P.

the complainant himself when the applicant did not hand over the

keys as well as the charge of the record of the post of Branch

Manager, then the almirah were broke open after following due

process of law. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the applicant that

after her transfer she had never handed over the charge to her

incumbent. Under these circumstances, when the charge sheet has

already been filed against the applicant under Section 299 of Cr.P.C.

coupled with the fact that that the applicant was holding the post of

Branch Manager, Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank, Branch Noorabad,

District Morena and she did not hand over the charge after her

transfer and on due verification valuable securities were found

missing, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (alok)

Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR Date: 2021.03.16 11:24:23 +05'30'