Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 37222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Ajay Kumar Nirankari, J
Bhawna Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38002 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Departmental Inquiry vs. Criminal Liability - Findings in a departmental inquiry fixing responsibility on one employee do not determine the criminal liability of another person accused of conspiracy, as the two proceedings operate in different fields. (Para 6)
(C) FIR Delay - Mere delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient to conclude that the prosecution case is false or motivated at the stage of considering anticipatory bail. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of conspiracy to embezzle public money, given her absence from duty on the date of occurrence and a clean service record.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandeep Dubey
For the Respondents: B.K. Upadhyay
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of embezzlement of railway cash and pre-planned conspiracy among employees. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defense based on sanctioned leave, clean service record, and unexplained delay in fir. (Para 3) |
| 3. necessity of custodial interrogation to uncover roles in a conspiracy involving public money. (Para 4) |
| 4. distinction between departmental findings and criminal liability in conspiracy cases. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. denial of anticipatory bail due to the seriousness of the offence and need for investigation. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
1. This is first application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by applicant for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.53/2026 registered at Police Station GRP Itarsi District Narmadapuram for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023.
2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a report regarding the alleged embezzlement of cash amounting to Rs.4,47,706/-, being the sale proceeds of railway tickets sold at the Railway Ticket Booking Office during the period from 05.12.2024 to 06.12.2024 up to 23:20 hours. As per the contents of the complaint, allegations have been levelled against Kumari Rinki Patel, Assistant Chief Booking Supervisor; Bhavna Rai, Chief Booking Supervisor, Itarsi; and Anil Kumar Rai, Station Manager, alleging that the aforesaid railway employees, while on duty, had, in furtherance of a pre-planned scheme, committed embezzlement of the said cash amount.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a permanent Railway employee presently serving as Chief Booking Supervisor. She has an absolutely clean service record and no criminal antecedents. The learned Sessions Court has also recorded the absence of any criminal antecedents against the applicant. The present prosecution appears to be the outcome of a well-planned conspiracy allegedly hatched by interested persons with a view to protecting the real culprit and falsely implicating the present applicant. The allegations against the applicant are based on suspicion and conjecture, and there is no credible material demonstrating her direct involvement in the alleged offence. Admittedly, the alleged incident relates to the period from 05.12.2024 to 06.12.2024, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 15.01.2026, i.e., after an unexplained delay of more than one year. The prosecution has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for such extraordinary delay, which casts serious doubt upon the genuineness of the prosecution version and warrants consideration in favour of the applicant at the stage of anticipatory bail. On the date of the alleged occurrence, the applicant was on duly sanctioned leave and was not posted at or handling the booking counter in question, nor was she handling the railway cash. The specific plea regarding the applicant's sanctioned leave has also been noticed in the order passed by the learned Sessions Court. The Railway authorities themselves conducted an inquiry and fixed responsibility upon the employee who was actually posted at the concerned booking counter and was handling the railway cash on the relevant date. The applicant was neither posted at the said counter nor entrusted with the cash in question. Consequently, there is no material to establish any direct involvement of the applicant in the alleged shortage. The applicant and her husband have been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion, without there being any cogent or substantive material connecting either of them with the alleged shortage of Rs.4,47,706/-. The applicant is a senior government employee drawing a monthly salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/-. She has an established career and pensionary benefits and has no reason whatsoever to jeopardize her entire service career, pension and reputation for the alleged amount of Rs.4,47,706/-. The circumstances of the case, therefore, do not support the allegation of intentional
