Ajay Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5422 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ajay Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

                                                             1
                              IN THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                                             ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5882 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          AJAY YADAV S/O SHRI RAJKUMAR YADAV, AGED
                          ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VASUNDHARA
                          COLONY    MALHAR     ROAD P.S. KEVLARI SEONI
                          DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI GAURAV MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                          S TAT I O N KEVLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                Reserved     on : 20.02.204
                                Pronounced on: 22.02.2024

                                This application having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
                          for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                                              ORDER

This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant who has been arrested relating t o FIR/Crime No.389/2023, dated 27.07.2023, registered at Police Station Kevlari, district Seoni, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 408 and 409 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in judicial

custody since 4.9.2023 and the trial will take considerable time to conclude. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The applicant is the permanent resident of district Seoni and is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Upon these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. This bail application has been argued on the ground that a false allegation

has been made that the applicant was involved in a crime of embezzlement of public money.

According to the prosecution, Rs.3,28,000/- payable against the salaries o f Kotwars were fraudulently withdrawn through IFMS Software and Naib Nazir Sachin Dahayat posted at Tahsil Office, Kevlari, committed this crime. The applicant was the person in whose bank account, a part of this amount was transferred. According to the prosecution, the amount received by applicant was Rs.60,000/-.

It is an admitted fact that the applicant is involved in another offence of similar kind in which the defalcated public money is Rs.11,00,00,000/- and for this reason, the bail application of applicant is opposed by the State. Although co-accused has been given the benefit of bail in that case by Hon'ble the Apex Court but that order was passed considering the period of long custody and looking to the prospective delay in trial but in the present case, the applicant is in custody only since the month of September, 2023 and there is nothing on

record to observe that there is any exceptional delay in trial.

Counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment of Ajit Kumar Chaturvedi and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2021 SCC Online Utt 1257 and his argument is that both the offences registered against the applicant should have been mentioned in the same FIR and registration of two FIRs is not permissible. It cannot be denied that the two criminal cases registered against the applicant relate to embezzlement of public money under two different heads and there was no legal requirement of a common FIR in regard to embezzlement of these two funds.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps