Krishnakant Shrivastava vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court considered the arguments presented by both the applicant and the objector/complainant. The applicant's counsel argued for the absence of evidence showing the applicant's role as an agent or his receipt of funds for deposit, including GST. Conversely, the objector/complainant's counsel highlighted the applicant's responsibility to collect and deposit funds from a hospital and medical store under various heads. The Court noted that the working module between the parties and the alleged amount embezzled by the applicant were significant factors. Based on these considerations, the Court found it not fit to release the applicant on bail. The application for bail was accordingly dismissed.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by the applicant, Krishnakant Shrivastava, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with FIR/Crime No. 21/2023, registered on January 12, 2023, at Police Station Kotwali, District Narsinghpur, for offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has been in custody since July 4, 2023. The prosecution alleges that the applicant was tasked with collecting amounts from a hospital and medical store and depositing them under various heads, including GST. The applicant claims innocence and false implication, arguing that the trial will take considerable time and that he is a permanent resident with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of embezzlement under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC. The applicant's contention, as argued by his counsel, is that there is no documentary evidence collected during the investigation to establish that the applicant was an agent of the complainant or that he received any money to be deposited as GST or under any other head. The applicant argues that his continued custody is not warranted. The objector/complainant's counsel argues that the applicant's role was to collect amounts from the hospital and medical store and deposit them under various heads. It is further contended that due to the nature of this working arrangement, it was not possible to obtain receipts from the applicant, nor was any money paid to him by the complainant, implying misappropriation.