Shilpi Mishra vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that apart from the Rs. 1,10,000/- transferred to the applicant's account from the loan amount, there was no other evidence on record directly connecting her with the crime. It was also observed that the amount was transferred by her husband, a co-accused. The applicant's readiness to deposit the Rs. 1,10,000/- under protest was a significant factor. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court directed that in the event of her arrest, she would be released on bail subject to depositing Rs. 1,10,000/- in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety. The Court also laid down standard conditions for bail, including cooperation with the investigation, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without prior permission. The deposited amount is subject to the final outcome of the case.

Facts

The applicant, Shilpi Mishra, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered for offences including cheating, forgery, and corruption. The prosecution alleged that a loan was obtained from Bank of Maharashtra under the Mukhyamantri Yuva Udyami Yojana based on forged documents and quotations. The loan amount was transferred to M/s Ahmed Enterprises, a firm whose account was allegedly opened using fake certificates. The applicant, wife of co-accused Shailendra Singh Thakur, received Rs. 1,10,000/- from the account of M/s Ahmed Enterprises. The prosecution contended that she was a beneficiary of the embezzled loan amount. The applicant argued her innocence, stating the transfer was solely based on her marital relationship and she was ready to deposit the amount under protest. She also cited her status as a lady, her recent childbirth, and ailment as grounds for bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Shilpi Mishra, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of her involvement in embezzling loan amounts through forged documents? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that she is innocent and falsely implicated. The sole allegation against her is the transfer of Rs. 1,10,000/- from her husband's firm's account to hers. She contended that this transfer alone does not establish her involvement in the crime. She highlighted her status as a lady, her lack of criminal antecedents, recent childbirth, and ailment. She expressed readiness to deposit the amount under protest and cooperate with the investigation. She also submitted that her arrest would ruin her reputation. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (EOW) and the objector opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. They argued that the applicant was involved in the crime and received Rs. 1,10,000/- from the loan amount, making her a beneficiary. Therefore, she should not be released on anticipatory bail.