Custodial Interrogation Deemed Imperative in Case of Large-Scale Food Grain Embezzlement Despite Joint Venture Security Clauses.

The applicant, a Branch Manager for the M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation, sought anticipatory bail regarding allegations of missing stock involving 1,760 bags of green gram (moong) from a joint venture warehouse

The applicant argued that the responsibility for security lay with the private godown operator under the joint venture agreement and that his oversight of sixty warehouses made personal supervision unfeasible

Conversely, the State alleged that the applicant held a set of keys to the warehouse, no locks were broken, and co-accused statements implicated him in the embezzlement

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the embezzlement allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Section 438 CrPC) regarding anticipatory bail

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, which require courts to balance personal liberty against the gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and the needs of the investigation

Clauses 6.10 and 6.19 of the Joint Venture Agreement and the M.P. Krishi Bhandar Grah Adhiniyam, 1947

The court found that despite the applicant’s claim of being a mere administrative overseer, the Joint Venture Agreement specifically held the Branch Manager responsible for the security of stored grains

The court noted that a significant quantity of stock was missing without evidence of forced entry, suggesting internal complicity

While the applicant pointed to his own letters reporting the missing stock as evidence of innocence, the court observed that he had failed to cooperate with the investigation following the FIR

Applying the Mhetre guidelines, the court determined that the magnitude of the embezzlement and the potential impact on public order necessitated custodial interrogation to ensure a complete investigation, overriding the applicant's plea for personal liberty

The application (M.Cr.C. No. 30687 of 2026) was dismissed