[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hukumchand Malviya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Special Task ... on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12477
1 MCRC-19640-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 4 th OF MAY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19640 of 2026
HUKUMCHAND MALVIYA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SPECIAL TASK FORCE ECONOMIC
OFFENCE WING EOW
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Dalal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Lokendra Joshi - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
1. This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 482
of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No.55/2026 registered at Police Station - Economic
Offence Wing (EOW), P.T.C. Parisar, Ring Road, Musakhedi, Indore (M.P.)
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B of
IPC and Section 7, 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant
is serving as a Government Officer of the Nagar Parishad and pursuant to
some project of water supply, the applicant has not deducted 10% of the
contract value amounting to Rs.27,16,008/-. Thereafter the FIR is lodged
against the applicant and the said amount is deducted, therefore, there is no
loss to the public exchequer. He further submits that the applicant has no
criminal antecedents and he has also retired from the service. The applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12477
2 MCRC-19640-2026
has cooperated in the process of investigation whenever the investigating
officer called him. The allegation levelled against the applicant are
essentially on the basis of documentary evidence, therefore, he submits that
further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Therefore, he
submits that looking to the age of the applicant and also considering the fact
that he has cooperated during the process of investigation and that there is no
loss to the public exchequer, the application for anticipatory bail may kindly
be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-EOW has submitted that from
the record itself there is clear involvement of the present applicant and the
amount is required to be recovered during the process of investigation.
Therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence, no discretion should be
exercised in favour of the applicant. Hence, the applicant does not deserve to
be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the case diary and considering the fact that the applicant is a
government servant (now retired from service) and also considering the fact
that the loss of certain amount caused to the public exchequer due to
negligence on the part of the present applicant has been deposited by the
applicant and considering the nature of allegation which are based mainly on
the documentary evidence and considering the fact that the applicant has
cooperated during investigation, the anticipatory bail is allowed on the
following terms:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12477
3 MCRC-19640-2026
(i) It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in
connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail
upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the arresting officer.
(ii) the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation by a police officer, as and when required;
(iii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, 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 any police officer;
(iv) if the applicant is found involved in any criminal case of the
same nature during this bail period, this order granting the benefit of
anticipatory bail shall be liable to be cancelled;
(v) he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior
permission of the Court.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
trilok
