Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrs. Shashibala Maru vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
M.Cr.C. No. 53270/2021
Mrs. Shashibala Maru, W/o Shri Suresh Chandra Maru, aged about 49 years,
Occupation Government Servant, R/o EWS, A-32, Meghdoot Nagar, Mandsaur,
M.P.
---Applicant.
Versus
Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) Ujjain, M.P.
--Non-applicant
ORDER
Date: 28.10.2021:
Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the Respondent .
****
This is the First application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C
seeking bail in connection with Crime No.334/2016 registered at
Police Station- Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Office
Ujjain for the offence punishable under section 13(1) (c) (d) & 13-2
of Prevention of Corruption Act.
As per prosecution story, the applicant was appointed on the
post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III vide order dated
26.09.2006 issued by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat,
Mandsaur. Vide order dated 29.08.2013, the applicant was re-
deployed as a Hostel Superintendent, Scheduled Caste Girl's Hostel,
Mandsaur under the Tribal Welfare Department. The Special Police
Establishment received a complaint in respect of embezzlement and
financial irregularities of Rs. 4,00,000/- from period August 2013 to
August 2014. The then Collector constituted a five member
committee to enquire about the allegations. The re-deployment of the
applicant was immediately cancelled w.e.f.30.06.2014. She was
placed under suspension. The investigation was revealed that during
the aforesaid period, the applicant has shown admission of 50 girls in
- : 2 :-
the hostel and withdrew the amount from the treasury by forging the
record. Infact only 9 admission were actually there during the said
tenure. After examining all the records, it was found that by misusing
the post of public servant, she has caused loss of Rs.5,12,840/-.
Accordingly an FIR was registered against her on 07.09.2016 under
Section 13(1) (c) (d) & 13-2 of Prevention of Corruption Act and 409
of I.P.C vide crime No.334/2016. The department has granted the
sanction of prosecution on 23.07.2020. The investigation was
completed. The applicant was called upon to appear before Special
Judge at the time of filing of charge-sheet. The applicant was
produced before the Court on 22.10.2021. She filed an application
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail which has been rejected
by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
not committed any offence and she has falsely been implicated in this
case. She was never arrested during the investigation. There is no
allegation that she did not cooperate with the investigation and tried
to tamper the evidence. So far as recovery of amount is concerned,
this Court in W.P. No.27743/2019 vide order dated 18.12.2019, the
recovery has been stayed. Learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance over the judgment passed by Apex court in case of
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation reported as
2021 SCC Online SC 922. He also placed reliance over the judgment
of Siddharth Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 615
in which the Apex Court has held as under:
A distinction must be made between the existence of the power
to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine,
it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a
person. If the investigation Officer has no reason to belive that the
accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should
be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. We are, in fact,
faced with a situation where contrary to the observations in Joginder
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. &Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 260 how a police officer
- : 3 :-
has to deal with a scenario of arrest, the trial courts are stated to be
insisting on the arrest of an accused as pre-requisite formality to take the
charge-sheet on record in view of provisions of section 170 of the
Cr.P.C. We consider such a course misplaced and contrary to the very
intent of section 170 of Cr.P.C.
Shri Jain, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar and
Siddharth (supra) will not apply in this case because offence is
related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, hence, merit of the case
is liable to examined. It is further submitted that applicant being a
public servant has caused loss of Rs.5,12,840/- to the government.
The maximum punishment for the offence under Section 409 of
I.P.C. is life imprisonment but fact remains that during the
investigation, she has not arrested and no custody was sought by the
Special Judge at the time of filing the charge-sheet.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without
commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed and
she is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his
appearance before that Court during the pendency of trial and shall
also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
C.c as per rules.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
praveen
Digitally signed by
PRAVEEN NAYAK
Date: 2021.10.29 17:09:34
+05'30'
