[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash Imne vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9820
1 MCRC-11431-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11431 of 2026
OM PRAKASH IMNE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS/439 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the applicant for grant of bail.
The applicant is in custody since 09.04.2025 in connection with Crime
No.81/2025, registered at Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha (M.P.), for
offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 409, 120-B, 467, 468 of IPC
and Section 7(x), 13(2) of PC Act.
As per the prosecution case, a complaint was lodged by Pooranlal,
Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Lateri, alleging that one Shivbahadur Singh
(Assistant Sub-Inspector), along with one Vishwanath Dhamde (Assistant
Grade-II), prepared forged sanction orders and, on the basis of such forged
documents, withdrew and misappropriated government funds. It is further
alleged that during an inquiry, several financial irregularities were detected,
revealing that an amount of ₹61,11,393/- had been disbursed improperly.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9820
2 MCRC-11431-2026
The allegations include that purchases of items such as garden chairs,
inverters, water coolers, etc., were made at excessive rates and in violation of
prescribed procurement rules. According to the prosecution, these purchases
were made on the basis of forged sanction orders and were not in accordance
with established procedures. Upon completion of the departmental inquiry,
the allegations were found to be substantiated, and on the directions of
superior officials, the FIR was registered against the applicant. After
completion of investigation, the police have filed the final report before the
competent Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the
entire case is based on a departmental inquiry conducted behind the back of
the applicant, without affording him any opportunity to rebut the allegations.
It is further submitted that the procurement was carried out through the GeM
portal in accordance with prescribed procedure, and therefore no illegality
can be attributed to the applicant. At the most, the allegations may indicate
procedural irregularities, which do not constitute a criminal offence. It is also
argued that there is no allegation or material to show that the alleged amount
has been received by the applicant or any of his relatives, thereby negating
the ingredients of misappropriation. It is further submitted that the applicant
is in custody from 09.04.2025 and the Trial will take time for its
conclusion. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already
been filed. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Raisen, has no
likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, and is ready to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9820
3 MCRC-11431-2026
cooperate with the trial. Therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on
bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the bail
application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature
of the allegations, and looking to the period of custody undergone by the
applicant, coupled with the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in the
near future and that prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the
concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the
applicant.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case,
this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on
bail on 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/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by
the concerned Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicant:-
a. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of
the bond executed by him;
b. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
may be;
c. The applicant will not indulge themselves in extending inducement,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9820
4 MCRC-11431-2026
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,
as the case may be;
d . The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency
of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically,
without further reference to the Bench;
e. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial; and
f. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
