Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4266/2024 of MOHINI SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGATON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4266 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MOHINI SHRIVASTAVA W/O SHRI AJAY KUMAR, AGEDABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. EMPLOYEE D-204 CANT ROAD TAU INDORE DISTRICT INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SANDEEP KACHHI, ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION LALBAGH DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI NARENDRA CHOURASIA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant/accusedunder Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as she is underapprehension of her arrest, in connection with Crime No.612/2023, registered atPolice Station Lalbagh, District Burhanpur (M.P.) for the offences punishableunder Sections 420, 409, 34 and 120 of Indian Penal Code.
2 . Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that entiredefalcated amount has already been deposited by co-accused person. Applicant has not earned any monetary benefit or kickback. Applicant is the signing authority and has acted only negligently. She is a woman aged about 66years and is retired from service. She is ready to co-operate in investigationand will appear before the Investigating Officer when called for investigationand at the time of filing of charge sheet. In these circumstances, applicant maybe enlarged on anticipatory bail.
3 . Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State opposed theapplication for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant is one ofthe main accused in the case.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5 . Co-accused persons in the case namely, Kunwarlal Yadav, Smt.
Ranjana Singh, Amar Singh, Ambika Patel, Narendra, Balchand Pawar andNarayan Patil have already been enlarged on bail. Case of applicant is on paritywith other co-accused persons.
6. Considering the aforesaid, anticipatory bail application filed by theapplicant is allowed.
7. It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number and the offences, she be released on bail on herfurnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousandonly) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of theInvestigating Officer/Arresting Authority.
8. The applicant is directed to join the investigation immediately and toco-operate with the investigating agency. She will further abide by the conditionenumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)JUDGE