The main legal point established is that the court may grant bail to an accused if there is lack of evidence linking the accused to the alleged offence and if the charge sheet has been filed.

JUDGMENT

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. - This is the first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested on 07.04.2022 in connection with Crime No.543/2021 registered at Police Station Thandala, District Jhabua (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468,471, 120-B of IPC and under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption act.

Prosecution story, in brief is that applicant in connivance with other co-accused person did financial misconduct in the Farmers Waiver Scheme launched for farmers welfare which waives the loan upto Rs.2 lakhs borrowed before 31.03.2018. Co-accused Pawan Dixit being Branch Manager of Co-operative Society, Thandala, Jhabua made forged loan documents of 189 farmers and entered the forged details in the cash book on 20.06.2016, 21.06.2016 and 23.06.2016 thereby attempting embezzlement of Rs.3,15,25,500/- through the forged entries of cash book. Loan amount of 35 farmers of Rs.60,56,987/- was credited to institution's account on 21.09.2019 and certificates were issued with regard to above 35 farmers. 16 beneficiaries raised grievance by presenting objecting the loan waived by the department saying they have not applied or taken any such loan. Upon which the matter was investigated by co-operative department and embezzlement of Rs.1.50 crores was came out to be done.

During investigation, it was found that applicant being a Branch Manager of Jila Sehkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Jhabua Shakha, Thandala deposited an amount of Rs.60,56,987/- in the current account claiming to be recovered as loan amount instead of informing the actual fact to the government. It was also found that applicant after knowing the fact officers and employees of government, semi- government and corporation were not entitled for the aforesaid MP loan waiver scheme, illegally obtained its benefits.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of occurrence of the offence i.e. since 16.02.2016 to 31.03.2017, applicant was posted at Branch - Bamania and he was transferred at Branch Thandala on 25.06.2019. as per prosecution case itself applicant himself reported the matter to the police on which FIR was lodged against the co-accused Pawan Dixit and others. Departmental Enquiry Committee in its report did not find the applicant liable for any irregularities. applicant himself informed the department that he or his wife have not applied for any loan waiver scheme and he returned the cheque issued by the said bank. applicant and his wife did not receive any amount from the loan waiver scheme. There was no form submitted by them claiming the aforesaid loan.

Applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of complaint made by the wife of co-accused Pawan Dixit. applicant is in custody since 07.04.2022.

Investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed. Trial will take time to conclude and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the application and submits that matter relates to embezzlement of huge money. Hence, no indulgence is warranted in the matter of grant of bail to the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

This is an admitted fact that applicant was transferred at Branch Thandala on Date: 2022.04.26 10:13:49 IST 25.06.2019 i.e. after occurrence of the offence and on his report, FIR was lodged against the co-accused person - Pawan Dixit. There is nothing on record which indicates that applicant or his wife claimed or receipt any amount from the loan waiver scheme. applicant's further custodial interrogation is not required in the matter as charge sheet has been filed. In the aforesaid circumstances and considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of t