[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4220
1 MCRC-59657-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 59657 of 2025
PANKAJ MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first 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 (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2),
126(2), 140(3) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. The applicant is in jail since
18.11.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the relevant
point of time, the applicant was not posted at Seoni whereas he was posted as
a DSP, Hawk Force, Balaghat. Previous for about three year, he was posted
as a CSP at Jabalpur. On 08.10.2025, a secret information was provided by
the police informer to Pramod Soni, who was the Constable in Crime Branch,
Jabalpur. Thus, the information was passed by Pramod Soni to CSP namely
Udaybhan Bagri posted at Jabalpur, who asked him to contact any police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4220
2 MCRC-59657-2025
officer hence, he called the present applicant and given the information that
in white Creta Car bearing registration No.MH-13-EK-3430, hawala money
amounting to 2-3 crores is being transported. On that, he asked the
concerned police station to inform the concerned authority as he was not
posted on the way/police station and general duty. On the request of Pramod
Soni, he had informed to Pooja Pandey. After that, Pooja Pandey along with
police officers of the concerned district had stopped the vehicle. Since no
money or suspicious object was found, therefore, information was again
confirmed from the informer and the informer had sent them some video
clips. After that, again the search was made in which Rs.2,96,50,000/- was
found from the vehicle. Thereafter, the main accused was constantly in touch
with this applicant and other persons. After deliberate discussion, the SDOP
and his team kept Rs.1,45,00,000/- in his possession without information and
showing search and seizure and left the remaining cash, vehicle, driver and
the person going along with the consignment and no legal proceeding was
initiated. On a complaint, the enquiry was made by the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. On that basis, the FIR was registered on
14.10.2025 in Police Station Lakhanwada, District-Seoni. It is alleged that
this applicant was also involved in the case as the information was also given
to him and in conspiracy with the main accused Pooja Pandey, the offence of
dacoity was committed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that 81 calls
were made between the applicant and the main accused Pooja Pandey SDOP,
Seoni in which 27 calls were missed call, 24 calls were of less than 1 minute,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4220
3 MCRC-59657-2025
13 calls were of 1-2 minutes, 07 calls were of 2-3 minutes, 04 calls were of
3-4 minutes, 02 call were of 4-5 minutes and 04 calls were more than 5-6
minutes. Some calls were being dropped.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in the
enquiry, the applicant was made a witness and in that, he had clearly
disclosed the whole incident. It is also submitted that the applicant was not
named in FIR and basically he was not arrested but after on the basis of call
record, he has been made an accused.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment
reported in (2022) 12 SCC 633 [State v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and
another] particularly the paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the judgment and
submitted that CDR details of the accused is the matter of trial. He has also
relied upon the judgment reported in (2015) 11 SCC 178 [Kiriti Pal v. State
of West Bengal and others] particularly the paragraph Nos.32 and 33 of the
judgment and submitted that telephonic conversation is corroborative piece
of evidence and also relied upon the judgment reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
Del 5641 [Deepak Nagiya v. State] particularly the paragraph Nos.24 and 25
in which it has been held that the evidentiary value of the CDR may be
looked at the stage of trial and it cannot be a ground for denial of anticipatory
bail for the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the
applicant is in custody and charge sheet has been submitted, hence, the
applicant be released on bail.
7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that from the call
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4220
4 MCRC-59657-2025
record, it is clear that before stopping the vehicle, during the proceedings and
after the incident, the consigner was looted by the police force. The applicant
was constantly in touch with SDOP Pooja Pandey since 08.10.2025 to
09.10.2025, hence, the application be dismissed.
8. Heard the parties and perused the record.
9. As per the prosecution case, there is an allegation against the police
party which led by the main accused SDOP Pooja Pandey that from the
informer's intimation, the vehicle was stopped, it was searched and hawala
amount of Rs.2,96,50,000/- was recovered, but police officer neither made
any entry, nor made any search seizure panchnama or entered the
information in the general diary of the police station. The SDOP Office had
also not shown any seizure. No FIR was registered. It is the allegation that
the police party demanded 75% of the seized amount as a hush money. On
that, after a long conversation, the matter was settled and Rs.1,45,00,000/-
was seized from the Office of SDOP Pooja Pandey. After enquiry, the SHO,
Lakhanwada had registered the FIR as Crime No.473/2025. After the
investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant is a
government employee and gazetted officer. The evidence against the
applicant is only telephonic call record. He was not present on spot. Nothing
has been recovered from the possession of this applicant.
10. Looking to the factual aspects of the case and the facts that being a
government employee, there is no chance of applicant's absconding and trial
will take time to be concluded, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the
application. Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4220
5 MCRC-59657-2025
the application is allowed.
11. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of 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 by that Court in this regard during pendency of
trial.
12. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Section 480(3) of BNSS.
13. Without prior permission of the Court, the applicant shall not leave
India.
14. Accordingly, Misc. Criminal Case stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
HK
