Neelam Warkhede vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The allegation that the applicant received Rs. 5,08,000/- from the loan amount, which was transferred by a co-accused from the account of M/s. Ahmed Enterprises to the applicant's account, prima facie shows her involvement in the crime. The Court noted that the investigation in this regard is ongoing. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the enormity of the fraud, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Facts

The applicant, Neelam Warkhede, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a crime registered for offences including cheating and corruption. The case involves a loan obtained by co-accused Deepti William under the Mukhyamantri Yuva Udyami Yojana for a textile industry. A quotation from M/s Ahmed Enterprises for sewing machines was submitted, along with a GST number and address. The bank manager allegedly verified documents and sanctioned a loan of Rs. 56.25 Lakhs for sewing machines and a cash credit limit. Funds were transferred to M/s Ahmed Enterprises. Later, it was discovered that the machines installed were of lesser value than those for which the loan was sanctioned, and the quotation was fake. The applicant allegedly received Rs. 5,08,000/- from the loan amount, transferred from the account of M/s Ahmed Enterprises.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of receiving a portion of the embezzled loan amount and her alleged involvement in the crime? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is innocent, falsely implicated, and that there is no evidence of her involvement in the crime, other than receiving Rs. 5,08,000/- from the loan amount. The applicant is willing to deposit this amount under protest, is a lady, has no criminal past, and is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Her arrest would ruin her reputation. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent EOW and the objector opposed the prayer, submitting that the applicant is a beneficiary of the loan amount, received Rs. 5,08,000/-, and is involved in the crime. Investigation is ongoing, and therefore, she should not be granted anticipatory bail.