Prakash Chandra Patel vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court noted the submissions of both parties, including the applicant's assertion of innocence, completion of work, and lack of departmental proceedings, as well as the State's admission that no departmental inquiry was initiated and no allegations of uncompleted work existed. The Court explicitly stated that it was looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and was not commenting on the merits. Consequently, the applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with a surety of like amount, subject to compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., including availability for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, not leaving India without permission, and not committing similar offences.

Facts

The applicant, Prakash Chandra Patel, filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (akin to Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 376/2025 registered at Police Station Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS. The applicant contended he was innocent, falsely implicated, and that there were no allegations of misappropriation or embezzlement of government funds. He stated he received a show cause notice regarding procedural irregularities but no departmental proceedings were initiated, and the allotted work was completed, evidenced by a completion certificate. The State opposed the bail, noting an amount of Rs. 1,59,400/- was paid to Sathiram Adiwasi by the applicant. The applicant rebutted that the payment was made because material was supplied before the GST system implementation, and the department was satisfied with his reply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? The applicant argued for anticipatory bail, asserting innocence, false implication, completion of work with a certificate, and no departmental proceedings or criminal record. They highlighted that the payment in question was made for pre-GST supplies and that the department was satisfied with their explanation, thus no departmental proceedings were initiated. The State opposed the bail, pointing to a payment of Rs. 1,59,400/- made by the applicant. The State also admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant and there were no allegations of uncompleted work.