Naresh Kumar Tandon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31065
1 MCRC-46766-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 20 OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46766 of 2024
NARESH KUMAR TANDON
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Aatraram Ben - Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant seeking issuance of appropriate
directions to respondent Nos.2 and 3 for release of the amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by him in compliance of anticipatory bail order
dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure A/1), along with accrued interest, after his
acquittal in Sessions Trial No.04/2020 vide judgment dated 05.07.2023
(Annexure A/3).
2. The grievance of the applicant essentially pertains to non-
compliance of the consequence flowing from acquittal and alleged arbitrary
and discriminatory retention of his money by the authorities.
3. The facts of the case are that the applicant aged about 71 years,
was implicated in Crime No.62/2016 registered at Police Station Amla,
District Betul for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 23-04-2026
15:58:31

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31065
2 MCRC-46766-2024
IPC. In connection therewith, the applicant approached this Court by filing

an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which was allowed vide order
dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure A/1) subject to a condition that he shall deposit
an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- before the office of ZilaPanchayat, Betul. In
compliance of the said condition, the applicant deposited the aforesaid
amount through Bank Draft dated 18.04.2016, receipt whereof has been
brought on record as Annexure A/2. The deposit thus made was neither
punitive nor compensatory in nature, but only a condition attached to the
grant of anticipatory bail to secure presence and cooperation of the applicant
during investigation and trial.
4. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and
the case proceeded to trial culminating in judgment dated 05.07.2023
(Annexure A/3), whereby the learned trial Court, after appreciation of
evidence, acquitted the applicant of all charges. The trial Court has
categorically discharged the applicant from all liabilities arising out of bail
bonds and surety obligations. It is not the case of the respondents that the said
judgment of acquittal has been stayed or set aside by any superior Court, and
therefore, the acquittal has attained finality. The applicant, thereafter,
approached the respondent authorities by submitting applications dated
17.08.2023, 24.01.2024 and 05.02.2024 (Annexures A/4 and A/5), seeking
refund of the deposited amount along with interest. However, despite
repeated representations, no action has been taken by respondent Nos.2 and
3. On the contrary, it is borne out from Annexure A/6 that the co-accused,
who stood on identical footing and was acquitted by the same judgment, has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 23-04-2026
15:58:31

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31065
3 MCRC-46766-2024
been refunded the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest of

Rs.1,18,768/- pursuant to NOC dated 19.12.2023 issued by respondent No.3.
This factual position has not been disputed by the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the applicant
has been acquitted and discharged from all liabilities, there remains no
justification for retention of his money by the authorities, and such action
amounts to unjust enrichment by the State as well as hostile discrimination in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the
applicant, being a senior citizen, has been made to run from pillar to post
despite clear entitlement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the matter
involves administrative processing and certain formalities are required before
release of the amount. However, no cogent or legally sustainable reason has
been assigned as to why the applicant has been denied the benefit which has
already been extended to the co-accused under identical circumstances.
7. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of
the material available on record, this Court finds that the deposit made by the
applicant was a condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail and was not
in the nature of fine, penalty or confiscation. Such deposit is essentially a
temporary arrangement to secure the ends of justice during pendency of
proceedings. Once the criminal proceedings have completed in acquittal and
the applicant has been discharged from all liabilities, the very basis for
retention of the amount ceases to exist. In absence of any statutory provision
authorizing continued retention, the respondents are under a legal obligation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 23-04-2026
15:58:31

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31065
4 MCRC-46766-2024
to refund the amount to the applicant.

8. The action of the respondents in withholding the amount assumes
greater significance in light of the admitted fact that the co-accused has
already been refunded the deposited amount along with interest (Annexure
A/6). The principle of equality before law mandates that similarly situated
persons must be treated alike, and any deviation therefrom must be supported
by reasonable classification and intelligible differentia. In the present case,
no such distinguishing factor has been pointed out by the respondents.
Therefore, the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount to the
applicant is clearly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
9. At the same time, this Court is mindful that the grant of interest
may be governed by financial rules, administrative instructions or policy
decisions of the concerned department. However, once it is demonstrated
that interest has been granted to a similarly situated co-accused, the claim of
the applicant for parity cannot be brushed aside and requires due
consideration by the competent authority.
10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the applicant has made out a clear case for interference under
Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of
process by administrative inaction.
11. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed with the following
directions:
a) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to release the principal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 23-04-2026
15:58:31

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:31065
5 MCRC-46766-2024
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by the applicant pursuant to anticipatory

bail order dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure A/1), within a period of 45 days from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
b) The competent authority shall also consider the claim of the
applicant for grant of interest, keeping in view the benefit extended to the co-
accused vide Annexure A/6, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within
the same period.
c) In the event the amount is not released within the stipulated
period, the applicant shall be entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum on
the principal amount from the date of expiry of the said period till actual
payment.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
mn

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 23-04-2026
15:58:31