Ramesh Nagpure vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
1 MCRC-23280-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
nd
ON THE 2 OF JULY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23280 of 2026
RAMESH NAGPURE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shishir Verma - counsel for the applicant
Shri D.P.Patel - Government Advocate for the respondent-State
ORDER
This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of
BNSS for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.38/2026 registered at
Police Station Tirodi, District Balaghat(M.P.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 316(5), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant
is in custody since 13.02.2026.
2. As per prosecution case on 12/02/2026 one Tushar Singh,
appeared at the police station and submitted an application before the Station
House Officer, Tirodi, stating that an enquiry into the complaint regarding
the grain procurement centre of Makepar was conducted on 07/02/2026 by
the Naib Tehsildar, and the enquiry report was submitted on 09/02/2026. As
per the report, in the kharif procurement season 2025–26, procurement work
was assigned to Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, Katedra
Centre No. 3, vide order dated 30/11/2025 (Order No. 3/2025 Balaghat).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
2 MCRC-23280-2026
Under this arrangement, society manager Gulchand Bisen, Katedra society

manager Netlal Patle, procurement centre in-charge Ramesh Nagpure, and
computer operator Golendra Madhave had procured and transported a total
quantity of 38,156.80 quintals of paddy from 712 farmers at the Mehkevar
procurement centre, against the sanctioned quantity of 37,898.93 quintals,
showing a shortage of 257.87 quintals. During inspection at the Mehkevar
procurement centre, it was found that 174 government gunny bags bearing
the stamps of the Mehkevar procurement centre were stored in the society,
and paddy filled in bags had been stitched manually using needles and plastic
sutli (twine). The total quantity found in such condition was approximately
56.97 quintals. The said substandard paddy of 56.97 quintals found on the
spot, contained in 174 bags, was seized and handed over to Netlal Patle,
Manager of Cooperative Society, Mahkepar, in safe custody. The
complainant, Sandeep Sonwane, stated that substandard paddy was
purchased by the procurement centre in-charge and stored in the Mahkepar
society. It was further stated by Manager Netlal Patle and Procurement
Centre In-charge Ramesh Nagpure, vide letter dated 03/02/2026 addressed to
the Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit,
Balaghat, that due to a shortage of gunny bags, approximately 80 quintals of
paddy had been stored in 200 bags at the procurement centre. However, as
per the inspection, the said 80 quintals were not found stored in 200 bags,
and upon physical verification, only 56.97 quintals of substandard paddy
were found stored in 174 bags. Thus, Society Manager Gulchand Bisen,
Katedra Society Manager Netlal Patle, Procurement Centre In-charge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
3 MCRC-23280-2026
Ramesh Nagpure, and Computer Operator Golendra Madhave procured

substandard paddy instead of the prescribed standard-quality paddy, resulting
in a financial loss to the government. They in a conspiratorial manner, with
the intention of making up the shortage quantity, procured substandard
paddy, and thereby misappropriated government funds and committed fraud
and cheating.
3. Counsel for the applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present crime at the instance of the prosecution. He submits
that earlier bail application of the applicant bearing M.Cr.C. No. 9946/2026
was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after
filing of the charge-sheet. Now, the investigation having been completed, the
charge-sheet has been filed, and there remains nothing further to be
investigated. Even if the entire prosecution case is accepted on its face value,
no offence as alleged against the present applicant is made out. Upon perusal
of the entire material and evidence collected during investigation, it is prima
facie clear that there are no direct or indirect allegations against the present
applicant. Therefore, false implication cannot be ruled out. He submits that
no offence under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is
made out against the applicant. The applicant relies upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 252 (L. Chandraiah vs. State
of A.P.) , wherein it has been held that mere negligence in passing vouchers
by employees of the post office is not sufficient to establish criminal liability
under criminal breach of trust provisions unless dishonest intention and
conspiracy are proved. In the present case, there is no allegation that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
4 MCRC-23280-2026
applicant withdrew any amount or acted in conspiracy with other accused

persons or had knowledge of any fraudulent or dishonest act. To attract
Section 316(5) BNS, 2023, it must be shown that a person being entrusted
with property or having dominion over property dishonestly misappropriates,
converts, uses or disposes of such property in violation of law or legal
contract. No such ingredients are satisfied against the present applicant. The
applicant is not directly or indirectly connected with the commission of the
alleged offence and has not actively participated in any manner whatsoever.
There are no direct or indirect allegations against the applicant, and therefore
his false implication cannot be ruled out. The applicant has not actively
participated in the alleged crime and is entitled to bail under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. On these grounds, he prays for grant of
bail to the applicant. Counsel for the applicant has also relied on the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana and another, reported in 2025 Live Law(SC) 169, Mihir Rajesh
Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2025, Live Law SC
1066 and the order passed by High Court of Meghalaya at Shilong in
Criminal Petn. 47/2026 (State of Meghalaya Vs. Smt.Sonam Raghuvanshi @
Biti @ Bittu). Paragraphs 51 to 56 of Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra) and
paragraph 31 of Vihaan Kumar(supra) are relevant. The same are
reproduced as under:-
51. Supplanting the above situation, there may
be a case wherein the Investigating Officer has sent a
notice for appearance of the accused to join the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
5 MCRC-23280-2026
investigation under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. 1973 (now

Section 35(3) to 35(6) of BNSS 2023) pursuant to
which the accused has joined the investigation. The
Investigating Officer, after perusal of material available
before him and/or on interrogating the accused, makes
up his mind that the arrest of the accused person is
required for further investigation or has other reasons
for arrest, in such cases, since the accused is under the
supervision of the Investigating Agency and there exists
no apprehension of him absconding, it becomes
incumbent upon the Police Officer to supply the
grounds of arrest in writing on arresting the accused
person. This can Page No. 21 of 24also be followed, for
instance, in cases involving offences which are
primarily based on documentary evidence/records,
economic offences such as under PMLA where the
grounds of arrest in writing be furnished to the arrested
person on arrest simultaneously.
52. We thus hold, that, in cases where the police
are already in possession of documentary material
furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written
grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee on
his arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances such
as offences against body or property committed in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
6 MCRC-23280-2026
flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest

in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be
sufficient for the police officer or other person making
the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the
time of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest
must be supplied to the arrested person within a
reasonable time and in no event later than two hours
prior to production of the arrestee before the magistrate
for remand proceedings. The remand papers shall
contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay
in supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be
included for the information of the magistrate.
53. The above indicated lower limit of two hours
minimum interval before the production is grounded in
the functional necessity so that the right as provided to
an arrestee under the Constitution and the statute is
safeguarded effectively. This period would ensure that
the counsel has adequate time to scrutinize the basis of
arrest and gather relevant material to defend the arrestee
proficiently and capably while opposing the remand.
Any shorter interval may render such preparation
illusory, thereby resulting in non-compliance of the
constitutional and statutory mandate. The two-hour
threshold before production for remand thus strikes a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
7 MCRC-23280-2026
judicious balance between safeguarding the arrestee’s

constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and preserving
the operational continuity of criminal investigations.
54. In view of the above, we hold with regard to
the second issue that non supply of grounds of arrest in
writing to the arrestee prior to or immediately after
arrest would not vitiate such arrest on the grounds of
non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the
Cr.P.C. 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) provided
the said grounds are supplied in writing within a
reasonable time and in any case two hours prior to the
production of the arrestee before the magistrate for
remand proceedings.
55. It goes without saying that if the abovesaid
schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing
is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal
entitling the release of the arrestee. On such release, an
application for remand or custody, if required, will be
moved along with the reasons and necessity for the
same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing
setting forth the explanation for nonsupply thereof
within the above stipulated schedule. On receipt of such
an application, the magistrate shall decide the same
expeditiously and preferably within a week of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
8 MCRC-23280-2026
submission thereof by adhering to the principles of

natural justice.
56. In conclusion, it is held that: (i) The
constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the
grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all
statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS
2023). (ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated
in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she
understands. Page No. 22 of 24 (iii) In cases where, the
arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the
grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be
so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in
writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least
two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand
proceedings before the magistrate. (iv) In case of non-
compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent
remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be
at liberty to be set free.
Paragraph 31 of Vihaan Kumar(supra) is reproduced as under:
The learned Single Judge unfortunately has equated
information given regarding the appellant's arrest with
the grounds of arrest. The observation that the
allegation of nonsupply of the grounds of arrest made
by the appellant is a bald allegation is completely
uncalled for. All courts, including the High Court, have
a duty to uphold fundamental rights. Once a violation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
9 MCRC-23280-2026
of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) was allged, it
was the duty of the High Court to go into the said
contention and decide in one way or the other. When a
violation of Article 22(1) is alleged with respect to
grounds of arrest, there can be possible two contentions
raised (a) that the arrested persons was not informed of
the grounds of arrest, or (b) purported information of
grounds of arrest does not contain any ground of arrest.
As far as the first contention is concerned, the person
who is arrested can discharge his burden by simply
alleging that grounds of arrest were not informed to
him. If such an allegation is made in the pleadings, the
entire burden is on the arresting agency or the State to
satisfy the court that effective compliance was made
with the requirement of Article 22(1). Therefore, the
view taken by the High Court is completely erroneous.

On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. Per contra, Counsel for the State submits that the allegations levelled
against the applicant disclose serious economic offences involving
misappropriation and manipulation in the procurement process. The
investigation conducted so far indicates prima facie involvement of the
applicant along with other co-accused persons in a coordinated manner,
resulting in financial irregularities and loss to the State exchequer. It is
further submitted that the offence is of a grave nature falling under Sections
316(5) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the same
cannot be viewed in isolation. The role of each accused, including the
applicant, is required to be examined during the course of investigation, and
custodial interrogation may be necessary for effective collection and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
10 MCRC-23280-2026
verification of evidence. The counsel for State contends that at this stage

there is sufficient material indicating the complicity of the applicant, and
therefore, grant of bail would adversely affect the ongoing investigation. It is
also submitted that there is a possibility of tampering with evidence and
influencing witnesses if the applicant is granted bail. Accordingly, it is
prayed that the application for bail be rejected in the interest of a fair and
unhindered investigation.
5. I have heard the counsel for parties at length and perused the case
diary.
6. Perusal of case diary clearly reveals that applicant with other co-
accused procured paddy of substandard quality instead of the prescribed
standard quality, resulting in financial loss to the Government. The said
persons, in furtherance of a common design and with a view to adjust the
shortage in quantity, procured inferior quality paddy and thereby
misappropriated Government funds and committed acts of fraud and
cheating.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
gravity of the offence, the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the
material available on record, it is evident that there exists strong prima facie
material against the present applicant. The facts of the cases relied upon by
the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable from those of the
present case. The judgments cited by the applicant are therefore not
applicable and do not support the case of the present applicant. The
investigation is still ongoing or requires further scrutiny of incriminating
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
11 MCRC-23280-2026
evidence. If the accused is released on bail at this stage, there is a reasonable

apprehension of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and
obstructing the course of investigation, particularly in view of the sensitive
nature of evidence involved in the case. In certain circumstances, there is no
requirement to inform the applicant about his arrest. The same are as
follows:
(1) When the accused is absconding after the commission of the
offence, arrest may be necessary to secure his presence during the
investigation and subsequent legal proceedings.
(2) When the accused or their family members approach higher
authorities seeking a fresh investigation or reinvestigation, arrest may be
warranted if justified by the facts and circumstances of the case and in
accordance with law.
(3) When the accused caught red-handed while committing the
offence, arrest is justified based on the immediate circumstances of the
offence.
(4) In cases involving financial offences, misappropriation, fraud, or
offences involving Members of Parliament (MPs) or Members of Legislative
Assemblies (MLAs), arrest may be necessary where there is credible prior
evidence that the accused has tampered with, manipulated, or destroyed
documentary or electronic evidence, influenced or attempted to influence
witnesses, or otherwise obstructed or is likely to obstruct the course of the
investigation.
(5) If there are serious allegations involving the commission of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48113
12 MCRC-23280-2026
heinous offences punishable under the provisions of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which relate to grave offences
against a child and are of an exceptionally serious nature carrying severe
penal consequences under the law.
8. In these circumstances, and considering the seriousness of the
offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant
stands dismissed.
(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE
S /-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
17:42:11