[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gajendra Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25469
1 MCRC-14097-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 31st OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14097 of 2026
GAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Aman Dawra - 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 482 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No.137/2023 registered at Police Station Nainpur,
District Mandla, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 477-A, 409, 201, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections
66(1), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 12, 13(1),
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from
06.11.2017 to 26.09.2018 and 01.06.2019 to 16.11.2021, the applicant was
posted as the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Nainpur, District
Mandla. It is alleged that the computer operator namely Jitendra Janghela has
misappropriated/embezzled an amount of Rs.15,30,000/- through 11 APOs
by transferring the amount in the accounts of his near, dear and relatives. As
per prosecution case itself, at the relevant point of time, the Digital Signature
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25469
2 MCRC-14097-2026
Certificate (DSC) of one V.K. Shrivastava was used, but not of this
applicant. He was not having any knowledge about such fraud. As per the
enquiry report submitted by four officers of the Revenue Department, it has
been concluded that Jitendra Janghela was the person, who embezzled the
amount of Rs.1,16,56,001.60, but there was no mention about any conspiracy
or consent of this applicant. The main offender has been given the benefit of
regular bail. Investigation will take time to be concluded. The applicant is a
retired government servant and there is no chance of his absconding, hence,
he be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the
anticipatory bail application and submitted that as per the memorandum of
co-accused, the applicant was receiving 50% of the amount withdrawn
illegally. The DSC was provided by the officer himself/herself and in these
circumstances, the applicant is equally liable for the offence, hence, no case
of anticipatory bail is made out.
4. Heard the parties and perused the case diary.
5. In the enquiry report itself, there is no allegation that the CEO was
involved. At the time of withdrawal of money and during the period of this
applicant, the DSC of V.K. Shrivastava was used, but not of this applicant.
There is difference between intention of committing offence and being
negligent.
6. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects of the case, this Court
deems it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. Thus,
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25469
3 MCRC-14097-2026
allowed.
7. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be
enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/trial Court for his appearance before
the concerned during the course of investigation or during trial Court, as the
case may be.
8. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency
and if required by the police, also appear on the date and time directed by the
Investigating Officer.
9. It is further directed that the applicant shall abide by all the
conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
10. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
dm
