The court held that anticipatory bail considerations differ from regular bail, reaffirming the earlier decision in light of unchanged circumstances.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH rd ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31025 of 2025 RAVINDRA CHAUBEY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadoria - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

ORDER This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking grant of anticipatory bail who apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.284/2025 registered at Police Station Chanderi, District Ashoknagar (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 409 of IPC. First anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant in connection with the crime in question bearing MCRC No.27943/2025 has been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated

01.07.2025.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that in an internal enquiry conducted pursuant to the direction issued by the Collector, District Ashoknagar, it had come on record that one Shri Ranbhir Ahirwar Ex. BAC (Finance) Janpad Shiksha Kendra, Chanderi in connivance with Hariram Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN Ahirwar Ex. BRCC, Janpad Shiksha Kendra, Chanderi transferred a sum of Rs. 17,000/- in the bank account of Ravindra Kumar Chowbey Ex. BAC, Rs. 22,000/- in the bank account of Shobharam Ahirwar, Primary Teacher, Government unified Middle School, Gorakalan and sum of Rs. 30,650/- in the Bank account of Ramlal Ahirwar, Government unified Middle School, Chimla and sum of Rs. 5,000/- in his own account. The aforesaid amount was belonging to the State Exchequer and therefore, accused persons have tried to misappropriate and defalcate the Government money, and accordingly, the FIR has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that even though the first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant has been rejected on merits, however, there are certain aspects which could not be brought to the notice to this Court, and therefore, in the changed circumstances, the instant second anticipatory bail application is maintainable. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1978 (1) SCC 579 , and Yuvraj Gaud Vs. State of M.P. 2004 (3) MPLJ 40. He further submits that it is the case of the prosecution that a sum of Rs.17,000/- has been illegally transferred in the bank account of present applicant who at the relevant time was posted as BAC and was discharging the duties of BRC. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said amount was ever actually transferred in his bank account. Counsel further submits that under the threat of disciplinary Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN action, he refunded the sum of Rs.17,000/-, however, the said deposit cannot be treated to be adverse against the present applicant. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

4 . On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State/respondent opposes the bail application and submits that the allegation against the present applicant is of illegal defalcation of government funds to the tune of Rs.17,000/- as has been found in the internal enquiry conducted by the department and thereafter only, the FIR in question has been registered. He further submits that there are documents forming part of case diary to show that funds have been disbursed in the account of BRC, Chanderi, the duties of which post was being discharged by the applicant at the relevant time as incharge BRC. Counsel further submits that all the arguments sought to be advanced in