[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pooja Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16134
1 MCRC-7914-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7914 of 2026
POOJA PANDEY
Versus
STATE OF MP
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate with Shri Priyank Agrawal, Shri
S.K. Tiwari, and Shri Abhishek Shrivastava - Advocates for the the applicant.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Government Advocate for the respondetn/State.
ORDER
This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 483
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail
relating to FIR/Crime No.473/2025 registered at Police Station Lakhanwada,
District Seoni, for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 126(2),
140(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is in
jail since 14.10.2025.
2. The applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 02.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.52886 of 2025.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has
submitted that the applicant is innocent, she has falsely been implicated in the
case. She was posted as an SDO(P), Seoni. At the relevant point of time, an
input was given to the applicant by one Shri Deepak Mishra, In-Charge
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16134
2 MCRC-7914-2026
Superintendent of Police that in a vehicle bearing registration No.MH-13-
EK-3430, illicit drug is being transported. On that, the applicant reached on
the spot and made search of the said vehicle, on which, she recovered an
amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- from the drivers of the vehicle namely Irfan and
Mukhtiyar, who later on ran away from the spot. This intimation was passed
to the In-Charge Superintendent of Police and on his instructions, the amount
of Rs.1,45,00,000/- was kept in the office of SDO(P) from there it got
recovered.
4. Learned Senior Advocate has demonstrated from the call record that
there was a telephonic communication before and after the incident between
the applicant and the Additional Superintendent of Police (In-Charge
Superintendent of Police) Deepak Mishra and on that basis, it is submitted
that the applicant had communicated the whole incident to him. Deepak
Mishra is not the accused in the case. The investigating agency tried to
implicate the applicant on the ground that in the vehicle, Rs.2,96,50,000/-
were being transported, but after taking the half amount, she released the rest
of the amount. After enquiry, the police has registered a criminal case vide
Crime No.469/2025 against the hawala trader namely Sohanlal and his
drivers and in that, it has been stated that Rs.1,45,00,000/- were being
transported but after that, to fulfill the amount of Rs.2,96,50,000/-, the
recovery and seizure was made from the accused persons of that case.
5. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that from the call
record which is the part of the charge sheet, it is clear that the lead of the
offence was provided to the applicant by the Additional Superintendent of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16134
3 MCRC-7914-2026
Police, Seoni, who was the In-Charge Superintendent of Police. The applicant
was having no intention to use that money for her personal use that's why it
was kept in the office. An offence of murder took place in the jurisdiction of
Police Station Lakhanwada and at the relevant point of time, the Station
House Officer and other police officers of the said police station were present
in that village, hence, their help could not be taken. The applicant is having
no criminal record. She is a woman police officer having a child aged about
two years and at present, there is nobody to look after the child and the child
is also in jail. The applicant is having unblemished service record. Pre-trial
detention is not proper. Trial will take time to be concluded and there is no
chance that the applicant will abscond, hence, looking to the factual aspects
of the case that the charge sheet has been submitted and co-accused persons
have already been enlarged on bail, the applicant be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the bail
application and has submitted that from the material available on record, it is
clear that the applicant, after making the search and seizure of vehicle bearing
registration No.MH-13-EK-3430, made pressure upon the drivers, kept an
amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- and released the rest amount whereas if she was
having any bona fide intention, then she must have seized the whole amount
of Rs.2,96,50,000/-. It is further submitted that after making search and
seizure of the vehicle, the applicant must have prepared the panchnama,
arrested the drivers and registered the FIR or made the entries in the
concerned police record, but she failed to do so. According to him, looking to
the nature of crime, no case of bail is made out in favour of the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16134
4 MCRC-7914-2026
7. Heard the parties and perused the case diary.
8. From the material available on record, it is clear that an intimation
was provided to the applicant that in a vehicle bearing registration No.MH-
13-EK-3430, the hawala money amounting to Rs.2,96,50,000/- were being
transported and on that, she reached with the police force on the spot and
stopped the vehicle in a solitary place. After keeping an amount of
Rs.1,45,00,000/-, the rest amount was released by the police party.
Subsequently, the drivers had informed this incident to their owner/hawala
trader, who went to the police station and made a complaint and on that, an
intimation was sent to the higher authorities of the police department. On the
orders of the Inspector General of Police, an enquiry was conducted by the
Additional Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur namely Ashish Agrawal, who
found that a prima facie case is made and then only, the FIR has been
registered.
9. Looking to the factual aspects of the case, evidence available on
record coupled with the facts that charge-sheet has been submitted, sanction
has been obtained, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the
applicant on bail.
10. Thus, this second application filed on behalf of applicant seeking
regular bail stands dismissed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
dm
