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) 11654

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Satish Sharan Gupta – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 49425/2025



Advocates:
Raj Kumar Shrivastava[P-1],Advocate General[R-1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49425 of 2025 SATISH SHARAN GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Raj Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Saket Udeniya - PP for the State.

ORDER

1. This is the third application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in relation to FIR/Crime No.197/2025 registered at Police Station - Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS and under Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The allegation against the present applicant is that he along with other co-accused persons defalcated the public money amounting of Rs.6,19,274/- from the account of Vikaskhand Siksha Adhikari Khaniyadhana.

3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that present applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further argued that the applicant was posted as the Principal/BEO. As per the prosecution, he is alleged to have been instrumental in certain erroneous payments by handing over his ID and password to unauthorized persons. However, as he was a Government servant who has recently retired, he would not abscond and is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and trial as the case may be. He would also appear before the investigating officer as and when required. It is further contended that since he is a reputable citizen who is if arrested and incarcerated, no interest of justice would be served by his detention. It is further contended that in view of aforesaid, no prima facie ingredients are made out against the present applicant. The other co-accused person namely Girendra Kumar Khaghariya has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.23166/2025. One co-accused namely- Sukhnandan Rusgaiya has been granted benefit of bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Criminal) No.15660/2025 vide order dated 03.11.2025 and another co-accused person namley Yashpal Singh Baghel has also been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Apex court vide order dated 21.11.2025 passed in SLP (CRL) No. 15775/2025. He is permanent resident of District Shivpuri (M.P.), therefore, there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with prosecution evidence. Hence, on all these grounds, learned counsel for applicant prays that applicant be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State though vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed by its rejection by submitting that investigation is pending and it is huge embezzlement of public funds amount of Rs.81,23,794/-. As the present applicant is absconding, therefore, the exact amount embezzled or illegal benefit received by the present applicant is yet to be figured out. However, in the tenure of the present applicant total Rs.6,19,274/- was defalcated in connivance with other co-accused persons.

5. Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.

6. The co-accused Girendra Kumar Khaghariya who has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.23166/2025. But, from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the aforesaid co-accused had not received any financial benefit of the alleged embezzled amount, therefore, parity cannot be sought. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted benefit of bail to co-accused persons who were prima facie found to have received some amount from the alleged embezzled amount. Therefore, the case of the present applicant can also be considered in the same light. As the present applicant is absconding, therefore, the exact amount defalcated by him or the financial

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