IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK th ON THE 4 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39123 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

ARVIND KUMAR NODIYA S/O SHRI KASHI RAM NODIYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE VARISHTH SHAKHA PRABANDHAK PANJAB NATIONAL BANK SARKAL SASTRA MANDAL OFFICE GWALIOR R/O- 51 RAMANUJ NAGAR NEER GOVINDPURI CITY CENTRE GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI HARSHWARDHAN TOPRE - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE THANA BAHODAPUR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI R.S. KUSHWAHA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. This is first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.305/2022, registered at Police Station- Bahodapur, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that the applicant aged 55 years is a Senior Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank is apprehending his arrest again on the basis of registration of offence as referred Signature Not Verified above. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was not instrumental in embezzlement of money. He had no mens rea. He was Senior Branch Manager at the relevant point of time when other co- accused obtained loan under Mukhya Mantri Swa-Rojgar Yojna and after taking loan, they did not utilize it for the purpose for which loan was taken and therefore, they are facing allegation of offence referred above. The applicant has no direct role to play. At best, it may be case of ignorance/casualness but certainly no criminality can be attached. According to counsel, to derail the recovery procedure, this case has been registered as counter blast. Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Shrivastava Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 to support of his submission. Confinement may bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience. Applicant undertakes to cooperate with investigation/trial. He would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant party in any manner. Under these grounds, he prayed for anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant as Bank Manager should have been more cautious about the disbursement of loan because the loan has not been disbursed to proper person who really intended to set up any business of his own. It was purely a mechanism for causing fraud to the public money.

However, he fairly submitted that applicant does not bear any criminal record.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

5. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and facts situation, a chance be given to the applicant for course correction, therefore, this Court intends to allow the application and it is hereby Signature Not Verified directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.

6. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/ trial, as the case may be;

3 . The applicant will not indulge himself in extending 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 the Police Officer, as the case may be.

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is