Anil Mahavi vs Cbi Acb Bhopal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24496
1 MCRC-39702-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39702 of 2026
ANIL MAHAVI
Versus
CBI ACB BHOPAL
Appearance:
Mr. Sudeel Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the respondent .
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary / challan papers.
This is the first application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 preferred on behalf
of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No.RCO0082025A0005 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025
registered with Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Bhopal, District Bhopal (MP) and Final Report / Charge sheet No.15 of 2025
prepared on 30.06.2025 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-
B and 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Sections 13 (2) read with
Section 13 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
2. As per the prosecution story, the co-accused Deepak was the Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Barwaha Branch, District Khargone (MP) during
the period from 14.06.2021 to 07.06.2023. Co-accused Deepak in the charge
sheet essentially pertain to documentary entries, asserting that the applicant
executed 57 unauthorized electronic transactions from customers' account into the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
5:25:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24496
2 MCRC-39702-2026
account of the applicant Anil Mahavi, during his official tenure; and utilized that

amount for his own use after getting the amount from the applicant.
3. The present application is preferred on the ground that during the entire,
exhaustive course of the pre charge sheet investigation, the Investigating Agency
chose not to arrest the applicant, as he continuously, faithfully cooperated with the
process of investigation and all relevant bank records were securely taken
into possession by the prosecution.
4. Upon taking cognizance in the matter on filing of the charge sheet, the
learned Special Court (CBI) Indore issued summon, commanding the applicant to
physically appear before the Court; and he had apprehension that he would be sent
to jail. There is no possibility that he would flee from the course of justice.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire amount
involved in the alleged 57 transactions stands completely and fully recovered by
the State Bank of India. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant prays that in the
event of arrest of the present applicant in connection with Crime
No.RC008202S5A0005 registered with the prosecution be released on anticipatory
bail on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of
justice.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - Central Bureau of
Investigation (Anti Corruption Bureau), Bhopal has opposed the application by
admitting that the applicant - accused was not arrested during investigation of the
case, but the facts of the present case does not constitute an exceptional case
warranting grant of anticipatory bail. The recovery of the amount involved in the
fraud does not prove the innocence of the accused. If the State Bank of India does
not discovered the fraudulent transactions, the accused would have kept the entire
money. Learned counsel referred to a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
5:25:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24496
3 MCRC-39702-2026
Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V Vijay Sai Reddy reported in

AIR 2013 SC 2216 and case of Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of
Punjab reported in Laws (SC)-2025-3-101 = 2025 INSC 320/2025 SCC OnLine
SC 488. Learned trial Court has rejected the application recording the finding that
only summon has been issued, after taking cognizance of the final report submitted
by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and no warrant of arrest has been
issued against the applicant - accused. It is not disclosed that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the case. In such circumstances of the case, learned
counsel prays for rejection of the anticipatory bail application.
7. No doubt, the applicant - accused had not been formally arrested, during
the investigation of this case. The learned trial Court himself has recorded the
finding that only summon has been issued against the applicant - accused; and no
warrant of arrest has been issued against him. The Investigating Agency, as
mentioned herein above, consciously preferred not to arrest the applicant - accused
during the investigation or post filing of the charge sheet.
8. In case of Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab (2025 INSC
320) relied upon by counsel for the respondent - CBI, the Hon'ble Apex Court
addressed the issue as to whether anticipatory bail should be granted to public
servant, accused of corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and observed that power to grant anticipatory bail
should be exercised in very exceptional cases, relevant paras 19 to 21 are being
reproduced, as below: -
"19. While deciding the aforesaid case, this Court referred to
st th
the 41 Report of the Indian Law Commission dated 24
September, 1969 recommending the introduction of a
provision for grant of anticipatory bail wherein it has been
observed that “power to grant anticipatory bail should be
exercised in very exceptional cases”.
20. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
5:25:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24496
4 MCRC-39702-2026
vehemently advanced the argument on the subject of life and
liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
by placing strong reliance on the observations made by this
Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR 2011 SC 312 and submitted
that unless the custodial interrogation is warranted in the
facts and circumstances of the case, declining to grant
anticipatory bail amounts to denial of the rights conferred
upon a citizen / person under Article 21 of the Constitution.
We do not find any merit in this contention of the learned
counsel.
21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious
offence like corruption are required to be satisfied.
Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that
the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the
allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as
the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any
exceptional circumstances have been made out by the
petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is
no frivolity in the prosecution."
9. Now, coming to the issue as to whether facts of this case constitute an

exceptional case warranting grant of anticipatory bail.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 83 considering the same position held in
paras 8 to 11, as below: -
"8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh
that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and the
Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not
propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice
except that it makes no sense.
9. We are of the view that once the investigation is over and
charge-sheet is filed then the accused should be asked to
appear before the Court concerned and should furnish bail to
the satisfaction of the trial court.
10. If at all, the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate
the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course
of the investigation itself. Now there is no point in making a
formal arrest.
11. In such circumstances, referred to above, we order that
the petitioner herein shall appear before the CBI Court,
Gorakhpur and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the Court."
11. In the light of order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Musheer Alam (supra), this Court is satisfied that this is a fit case to enlarge the
applicant - accused on anticipatory bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
5:25:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24496
5 MCRC-39702-2026
12. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event

of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his executing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and furnishing one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating
Officer).
13. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police
Officer, as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions
enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
Certified copy as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
5:25:39 PM