Anjani Kumar Shrivashtav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22076 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anjani Kumar Shrivashtav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2023

                                                            1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                             ON THE 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 22220 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           ANJANI KUMAR SHRIVASHTAV S/O LATE SRI IQBAL
                           BAHADUR SHRIVASATAV, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: RETIRED SAMITI PRABANDHAK JILA
                           KENDREEYA BANK MARYADIT SHAHDOL R/O KAMLA
                           NAGAR BUDHAR ROAD SHAHDOL DISTRICT SHAHDOL
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI YOGESH SINGH BAGHEL -ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                 COOPERATIVE     MANTRALAYA     VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    BRANCH MANAGER JILLA SAHKARI KENDREEY
                                 BANK MARYADIT SHAHDOL SHAHDOL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JILA SAHKARI
                                 KENDREEY   BANK    MARYADIT   SHAHDOL
                                 SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (STATE BY SHRI PUNEET SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                           (RESPONDENT NO. 2 BY SHRI V.S. CHOUDHARY- ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

The present petition has been filed for direction to the respondents authorities to return the amount deposited by the petitioner under protest.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as well as Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail before this Court which was allowed in M.Cr.C. No. 4259/2010. As per condition No. (i) of the aforesaid order, the bail was granted subject to condition of depositing the alleged amount of commodities i.e. Rs. 1,78,382/- before the District Central Cooperative Bank Shahdol.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid amount was deposited by him in compliance of the directions given while granting

anticipatory bail by this Court. Subsequently, he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 30.03.2022 passed in ST No. 76/2010 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Umariya and his bail bonds have been discharged.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that despite this bank is not releasing the amount which was deposited by him as part of the condition for grant of bail.

5. the Bank is not shown to have any claim on the amount as amount was deposited as a condition of bail order and the petitioner has been acquitted in the alleged offence. Bail bonds have also been discharged. In my opinion the petitioner has made out the case for release of the amount.

6. Consequently, petition is allowed and the Bank is directed to release the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner would not be entitled to any interest on the amount because it was deposited as per orders of the Court of law. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date

of production of certified copy of this order.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE

MISHRA