Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Usha Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:869
1 MCRC-1234-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1234 of 2025
SMT USHA TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - G.A. for the respondent - State.
ORDER
This is the first application for grant of anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 of BNSS) filed by the
applicant who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime
No.384/2024, registered at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior
for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is a Government servant and is widow, therefore, she may
be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, because the allegation
against her is in respect of financial transaction. Therefore, it is a fit
case to be granted anticipatory bail.
3 . Per contra, Government Advocate for the State has
vehemently opposed the bail application on the basis of material
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:869
2 MCRC-1234-2025
available in the case diary.
4. Upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is seen that
the applicant is in service with J.A. Hospital, Gwalior, which is
Government run Hospital. A complaint has been received that the
applicant has taken Rs.3.00 lakhs each from as many as 15
unemployed persons, i.e. total of Rs.45.00 lakhs with assurance of
securing employment for them in J.A. Hospital, which would be a
Government service. In such manner, there is an allegation of taking
money from 15 unemployed persons of young age. It is not a case of
simplicitor financial transaction or of loan transaction. It is a case
where the applicant is alleged to have taken money from 15
unemployed persons in the name of securing Government
employment.
5. Upon a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the
application which was received against the applicant was enquired
into before registration of the FIR and it was found that the applicant
has even executed an agreement dated 27.02.2024 wherein the
applicant as well as all the 15 unemployed persons from whom
money was taken are alleged to have signed. The said agreement is
also available in the case diary, which categorically mentions an
admission of the applicant that the applicant had taken Rs.3.00 lakhs
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:869
3 MCRC-1234-2025
each from 15 persons to secure Government employment in J.A.
Hospital, Gwalior and if she does not succeed in securing the
employment, then she would return the money. Thereafter, the
applicant has even issued as many as 15 cheques of Rs.3.00 lakhs
each to such 15 persons and the said cheques are also available in the
case diary, which are stated to be duly signed by the present
applicant.
6. In view of the above, the matter does not remain a simplictor
matter of financial transaction, but is a matter of organized well
thought and planned cheating as per allegations in the case diary and
material available in the case diary assuring unemployed youth with
government service. Therefore, this Court does not find it to be a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the
application stands rejected.
7. Counsel for the applicant at this stage argued that benefit be
ordered to be granted to the applicant in terms of the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and
another (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 577, as the
offences punishable with maximum imprisonment of up to 7 years.
8. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court do not lay
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:869
4 MCRC-1234-2025
down as a mandate that in every case which is not punishable with
sentence of more than 7 years, the accused will not be arrested and he
shall only be issued a notice under Section 41-A or corresponding
provision under BNSS. The said judgments only lay down that they
are fetters on the police where it decides to arrest a person for an
offence which provides for a sentence of less than 7 years, to assign
reasons for arrest of the person. The requirement of the police in the
light of the aforesaid judgments is whether it considers it expedient in
the interest of justice to arrest a person whose act is punishable with a
sentence of up to 7 years. There cannot be a blanket protection of
arrest in such offences in view of the aforesaid judgments of the
Supreme Court.
9. Therefore, in view of the specific facts and circumstances of
the case, which have already been stated herein above, the
application is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
