Satyendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10566 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                  ON THE 11 th OF JULY, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12406 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SATYENDRA S/O SHRI DHANIRAM YADAV, AGED
                          ABOUT    32    YEARS, OCCUPATION:   SERVICE
                          MAHANANDA NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                          (SHRI ANIL OJHA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                          OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION JAWAD,
                          NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI SANTOSH SINGH THAKUR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
                          ADVOCATE GENERAL.

                                This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

1. Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He is in jail since 24.1.2022 in connection with Crime No.49/2022 registered at P.S. - Jawad, District Neemuch (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. The applicant is in jail since 24.01.2022.

2. Earlier, first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.09.2022 passed in MCRc No.32176/2023 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but now, the present application is being decided by this Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/12/2023 5:33:39 PM

Court due to nomination issued on 06.07.2023 by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

According to the prosecution story, Chief Municipal Officer Jagjeevan ram Sharma has presented an application before the police station Jawad on 23.1.2022 by stating that present applicant who was posted as Assistant Grade- III, was conducting the Shram Portal and as per various welfare schemes, he has to distribute the amount in the accounts of the beneficiaries. Registration of the documents was also done by him. During his tenure at Nagar Parishad Jawad, he has shown Tajammul Baig as a dead person and a forged case has been registered at Labour Portal and during the physical verification it was found that Tajammul Baig is alive. Thereafter, an enquiry team has been

constituted and after the detailed enquiry, report has been submitted and it has been gathered that present applicant has committed embezzlement of Rs.85,19,000/- regarding 84 beneficiaries. Accordingly offence has been registered against the applicant.

3. Shri Ojha, Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He is in custody since 24.1.2022. Investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed, therefore, no further detention is required. It is vehemently contented that the applicant was transferred on 03.12.2021 from Municipal Council Javad to Municipal Council, Manasa. Hence, he cannot be attributed to the crime. As per the transfer orders, he is not in-chage of Sharam Portal, but rather he was only working as a computer operator. The transactions were done by the CMO as he is the in-charge of all transactions then this applicant is unnecessarily impleaded in the present case.

4. Learned GA for the state has opposed the prayer by submitting that the earlier bail application of the applicant has already been dismissed on merits Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/12/2023 5:33:39 PM

by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and there is no change of circumstance except the custody period. The applicant has embezzled Rs.85,19,000/- by using the digital signatures of CMO without his knowledge. The offence is very serious in nature, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for regular bail.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties, perused the charge-sheet as well as the impugned order and the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench.

6. As per the enquiry report annexed with the case-diary, the applicant is prima facie involved in the transactions of Rs.85,19,000/- which was the amount for distribution between the entitled beneficiaries. As per enquiry report, the applicant has got opened the account in the name of his wife and released the amount in the same account.

7. To bolster his contentions, counsel for the applicant placed reliance over the judgement of apex Court passed in the case of Babu Singh and Others vs. State of UP [1978 (1) SCC 579] wherein it has been held that an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another on a later occasion giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. Since, in the present case, neither any material has been placed before this Court nor further development has been indicated except the period of custody, hence, the aforesaid citation shall not apply in the present case and the applicant cannot be benefited.

8. Further, counsel for the applicant placed reliance over the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2012 CRLJ 702] as well as on an order dated 07.01.2014 passed by this Court in MCRC No.8782/2013 [ Pramod vs. State of Madhya Pradesh].

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/12/2023 5:33:39 PM

9. Actually the facts of these cases are different to the present case, hence, the same are not applicable in the present case.

10. Certainly, delay in conclusion of trial is an important aspect, but only on this basis, the applicant can not be granted bail. This is a case wherein allegations of embezzlement of Rs.85,19,000/- against the applicant are there, hence, he cannot be benefited in view of the aforesaid law.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegations leveled against the applicant. the enquiry report as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and in view of the fact that counsel for the applicant could not point out any change of circumstance, in the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Hence, without expressing anything on merits of the case, the application is dismissed.

12. However, looking the period of custody, the learned trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from today.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/12/2023 5:33:39 PM