SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6552

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL, J
KAMLESH PATEL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21608 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ramraj Chauhan
For the Respondents: Shri Chandra Mohan Tiwari

Anticipatory bail is granted only under exceptional circumstances, contingent upon the lack of a prima facie case against the applicant, especially in serious fraud allegations.

Headnote:(A) The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Grant of anticipatory bail - Applicant apprehends arrest for alleged fraud involving fake truck challans causing significant financial loss to the State - Court holds that exceptional circumstances are required for anticipatory bail, noting the applicant's role as a computer operator tasked with data entries, was not sufficient for bail. (Paras 2, 6, 10-14)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Parameters - The court emphasizes that anticipatory bail is a remedy that should be exercised sparingly, and only in exceptional cases where there is no prima facie case against the applicant. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of colluding to generate fraudulent truck challans causing a loss to the State and asserts being falsely implicated without direct involvement or benefit. The applicant claims disability and poses no threat to witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court finds no prima facie case for anticipatory bail based on the evidence and context of the applicant's duties as a computer operator, suggesting the possibility of custodial interrogation.

Issues: The primary issues involve assessing the prima facie case against the applicant and the legitimacy of the grounds for anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the parameters for granting anticipatory bail necessitate a clear absence of a prima facie case against the applicant, with the decision reflecting the severity of the fraud allegations and the applicant's responsibilities.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of fraudulent activities leading to financial loss. (Para 2 , 3 , 5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21608 of 2025 KAMLESH PATEL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Mr. Ramraj Chauhan - Advocate for applicant.

Shri Chandra Mohan Tiwari- G.A. appearing for State.

RESERVED ON :- 26.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:- 01.09.2025 .......................................................................................................................................................S This petition having been heard and reserved for orders and on this Day, the Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER This first application under Section 482 of The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.

121 of 2025 of Police Station-Majholi, District-Jabalpur (MP) for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS and sections 3 and 7 of EC Act, who has knocked the portal of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Prosecution story, in brief is that applicant, being Computer Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT Operator, in collusion with other co-accused persons prepared fake and forged truck challan/paddy challan wherein material entries pertaining to truck number etc. were not mentioned and thereby caused loss of approximately Rs.1,49,07,300/- to the State Government by making fake entries on the portal as aforesaid.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is also urged that applicant did not receive any amount and neither any transaction has been done by the applicant in respect of the alleged account. There is no direct or indirect involvement involvement of the applicant in the said crime and he is the victim of false implication. Applicant is a handicapped person having 50% disability. Applicant has not defrauded any person. There is no possibility of threatening or alluring on the side of the applicant to prosecution witnesses.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is a computer operator and he is not aware about any transaction and he did not commit any fraud in any manner. It is also urged that at the relevant point of time, applicant was posted as Computer Operator and he made entries at the behest of Samiti Manager. There is no allegation that applicant misappropriated/embezzled any amount. It is urged that applicant was required to upload the vehicle number on the portal. It is urged that no transaction has been done by the applicant and nothing is required to be recovered from the possession of applicant. There is no possibility of absconding of the applicant or tampering with the evidence of the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT case. On above grounds, it is urged that applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed application. He submits that documents as well as Computer etc. are required to be seized. It is also urged that applicant has uploaded fake and forged vehicle number and has online generated fake and forged truck challan/paddy challan etc. On above grounds, it has been prayed that the application be dismissed.

7. Heard. Perused the record of the case.

8. This Court has examined submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of evidence available on record.

9. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to discuss the law pertaining to grant of anticipatory bail.

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 has discussed the issue and has held in para

69 and 77, as under:-

" 69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top