MP HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Auto Firm Proprietor In Case Over ₹12.69 Lakh Swachh Bharat Fund Transfer

The applicant, proprietor of M/s Mac Auto India Pvt. Ltd., sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 163/2025, registered at Police Station Chicholi, District Betul, for alleged offences under Sections 420, 409, 34 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The complaint alleged embezzlement of funds allocated under the Swachha Bharat Mission Scheme and stated that ₹12,69,000 had been transferred to the company’s account.

The applicant maintained that the company had dealt with co-accused Rajendra Parihar in connection with vehicle supplies and that he was unaware of any alleged embezzlement.

The principal accused and other co-accused had received anticipatory bail; the State opposed the application, although it confirmed that the applicant had no reported criminal antecedents.

The applicant’s first bail application was allowed.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for anticipatory bail.

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 420, 409, 34 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but did not interpret their elements or decide the merits of those allegations.

It applied the anticipatory-bail assessment to the circumstances before it, including the apparent need for custodial incarceration, risk of flight or interference with the investigation, the documentary character of the evidence, and the grant of bail to co-accused.

The order also imposed conditions concerning investigation, non-interference with witnesses and evidence, and compliance during trial.

No precedent is cited in the order.

The Court noted that the prosecution case involved verification of accounts and that the material documentary evidence had already been seized.

It also considered that the principal accused and the other co-accused had received anticipatory bail, that the applicant had no reported criminal antecedents, and that the State identified the transfer of funds to the company’s account as the basis for implicating him.

On the circumstances presented, the Court found no apparent likelihood of flight, evidence-tampering, witness interference or disruption of the investigation, and concluded that incarceration was not necessary for investigative purposes.

It expressly left the merits of the accusation for consideration on the evidence.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Mohd. Naeem Akhtar be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one solvent surety for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The applicant must cooperate with the investigation, refrain from similar offences and from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and ensure compliance with the applicable witness-examination provisions during trial.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of trial, subject to possible cancellation for breach of its conditions.