[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13666
1 MCRC-2316-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2316 of 2026
SANTOSH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Akshay Jha and Shri Atul Jeswani, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, a detailed report is
filed by the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, whereby it is observed in the
report that the concerned officer on last time has pointed out that DVR is not
available, though the CCTV camera is available in the warehouse. On his
personal verification, it is found that even CCTV camera is not available in
the warehouse. However, the Superintendent of Police has mentioned in the
report that due to wrong impression, the statement is made by the concerned
officer before the Court on earlier occasion that only DVR is not there and
CCTV camera is already installed and in concluding paragraph the
Superintendent of Police has given clean chit to the officer concerned by
saying that in the process of investigation, there is no negligence or collusion
or connivance shown by the Investigating Officer. Though, the Court is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13666
2 MCRC-2316-2026
accepting such finding of the report in toto as when the Superintendent of
Police himself has recorded such statement before the High Court when the
Court has called the concerned officer who was made that cannot be
considered as a mistake and it should be made after due verification of the
record and on the basis of personal verification also by the concerned officer,
which was not happened in the present proceeding. Therefore, it is expected
that the Superintendent of Police who is being head of the District should
also see that the aspect of truth prevails in any investigation of any offence
and he should also see that if required necessary strict action be taken against
the erring officers, who are committing serious mistakes in investigating the
offence, more particularly by making erroneous/false statement before the
Hon'ble High Court when the Court has asked specific query and such
conduct of the officer which cannot be considered by DSP by giving
conclusive opinion that there is no negligence or collusion or connivance on
the part of the investigating officer concerned, more particularly when the
case is about the theft of Moong from the godown, whereby while giving the
contract of godown by way of tender by the corporation, there is a mandatory
condition in the tender that the godown owner should have functional CCTV
camera. The purpose behind this is to check any illegality or irregularity and
if such thing happens then to find out the same and also with a view to have
continuous surveillance of the premises in question which was not found in
the present matter.
2. Let the Highest Authority of the State of concerned Department
may look into the matter in detail regarding the aspect of necessary
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13666
3 MCRC-2316-2026
punishment against the godown owner for such serious default committed by
him and such action shall be taken as expeditiously as possible.
3. This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicant under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of
Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.393/2025
registered at the Police Station, Majholi, District Jabalpur for the offences
punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305 of BNS.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant does not want of press I.A.
No.3376/2026, an application for grant of ad-interim bail. Accordingly, the
application is dismissed as not pressed.
5 . Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
wrongly implicated in the crime in question as he was arrested in some other
offence and thereafter by recording his statement in possible manner and by
producing fabricated Panchanama of recovery of the goods in question, the
applicant is falsely implicated in the crime in question. He has submitted that
in fact either some person from the warehouse; like Watchman or Manager
of the godown might have involved in the matter, but with a view to save the
skin of those persons, the Investigating Officer has falsely implicated the
present applicant by recording such false statement in possible manner.
Therefore, he has submitted that, as such the applicant is not involved in any
manner in the crime in question and merely recovery of the Moong which is
allegedly purchased from the market and thereafter it has been shown as a
recovery from the applicant. He has submitted that the entire case get up
against the present applicant. The applicant is behind bars since four and half
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13666
4 MCRC-2316-2026
months and looking to the offence and nature of punishment, he has
submitted that the applicant may be granted bail.
6. Counsel for the State has opposed the application by saying that the
applicant is a habitual offender and looking to his admission in the statement,
he was arrested in the crime in question and therefore, there is no question
that the Investigating Officer has committed any mistake and considering the
nature of involvement of the applicant, no discretion should be exercised in
favour of applicant.
7. I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties
and also considered the material available on record.
8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the applicant is implicated in the present case only on the
basis of his statement by showing so called recovery of Moong from the
possession of the applicant and also the fact that the applicant is behind bars
since four and half months, but without but expressing any view on the
merits of the case, the application is allowed.
9. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may
be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial.
10. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Section 480(3) of the BNSS, 2023.
11 . It is also made clear that if the applicant is found indulged in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13666
5 MCRC-2316-2026
similar nature of offence in future, then, this bail order shall stand cancelled
without further reference to the Bench.
12. It is directed that the applicant will not indulge in any activity
which is against the interest of the society and also not indulge in any
activity which affects the proceeding of the trial. He is directed to mark his
presence once in a month before the concerned Police Station on every first
Thursday till the trial gets over.
13. A copy of this order be forwarded to the DSP, Collector of the
District as well as concerned Secretary of Home Department and Secretary,
Revenue Department for necessary action and for giving necessary direction
to the concerned authority to see that in future such unwarranted situation
may not be created in any manner.
Certified copy today.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
b
