Arvind Sharma vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the applicant has not made out a case for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the allegations against the applicant, including his role as Unit Manager and the alleged manipulation of procurement machinery, violation of financial rules, and causing a loss of Rs. 80.81 lakhs to the Corporation in collusion with co-accused. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in *Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr.* and *CBI Vs. Anil Sharma*. These judgments emphasize that the prima facie case against the accused, the nature and severity of the offense, and the potential need for custodial interrogation are crucial factors. The Court noted that while custodial interrogation is not the sole ground for granting bail, the absence of a need for it does not automatically warrant anticipatory bail if a strong prima facie case exists. The Court found that the allegations, if taken at face value, indicated a deliberate criminal conspiracy and embezzlement of public funds, making custodial interrogation a relevant consideration. Therefore, based on the entire set of allegations and the applicant's attributed role, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Arvind Sharma, an applicant/accused, under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. for anticipatory bail. The applicant was posted as Unit Manager at Winds & Waves and Boad Club Unit, Bhopal. The allegations are that he, in collusion with co-accused, manipulated the procurement machinery of the Corporation, violating financial rules and causing a loss of Rs. 80.81 lakhs. This allegedly involved entering into a criminal conspiracy to manipulate procurement for a floating restaurant, using sham firms, generating false quotations, and inflating bills, thereby embezzling government funds. The applicant contends he is innocent, falsely implicated, a government servant with no recovery to be made, and that procedural irregularities do not constitute a criminal offense. He also argues that notice service via WhatsApp is invalid and relies on Supreme Court judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given the allegations of economic offenses, conspiracy, and embezzlement of public funds, considering the Supreme Court's stance on custodial interrogation and the prima facie case against him? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. - No recovery is to be made, and documents are with the investigating agency. - There is no mens rea, and procedural irregularities do not amount to criminal offenses. - Service of notice via WhatsApp is invalid as per Section 35(3) of BNSS. - Reliance is placed on *Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation* and *Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar*. - The alleged offense is not an economic offense, and custodial interrogation is not required. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The applicant was involved in a deliberate criminal conspiracy to manipulate procurement machinery for personal gain, causing grave economic offenses. - This involved misrepresentation, embezzlement, cheating, fabrication of records, and falsification of accounts. - Procurements of Rs. 80.81 lakhs far exceeded the applicant's financial authority and the prescribed Delegation of Powers, 2020. - Goods were supplied in quantities less than billed, with items not entered in stock registers and at inflated rates. - The applicant admitted to no requirement for purchase and non-compliance with rules during departmental inquiry. - Custodial interrogation is required due to the organized conspiracy and embezzlement of public funds. - Reliance is placed on *P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh* and *Nishikant v. State of Madhya Pradesh*.