MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Woman Accused Of Embezzling Railways Ticket Sale Proceeds
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a woman serving as Chief Booking Supervisor in the Railways, who was accused of embezzling ₹4.47 lakhs from Ticket Sale Proceeds along with other employees. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 335]
The bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari observed that the investigation was still underway and that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out at this stage, particularly as the investigating agency was required to ascertain the applicant's precise role.
"In the considered opinion of this Court, the seriousness of the alleged offence, the amount of Railway cash involved, the allegation of preplanned conspiracy and the fact that the precise role of the applicant is yet to be completely ascertained during investigation weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to extend the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the applicant".
The case arose from a complaint concerning an alleged shortage of ₹4.47 lakhs from the sale proceeds of railway tickets at a booking office. The allegations were made against the Assistant Chief Booking Supervisor, Chief Booking Supervisor, and Station Manager.
The counsel for the applicant contended that she was implicated merely based on suspicion and conjecture, and there was no credible material establishing direct involvement in the alleged embezzlement.
It was submitted that the alleged shortage related to December 4-5, 2024, whereas the FIR was registered only on January 15, 2026. According to the applicant, the prosecution had offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay of more than one year, she argued, casting doubt on the prosecution's case.
The applicant further submitted that she was on sanctioned leave on the relevant dates and was neither posted at the concerned booking counter nor handling the railway cash. She also relied on a departmental enquiry, in which responsibility was allegedly fixed upon a different employee, who was actually posted at the counter and handling cash.
The counsel for the applicant further argued that she is a permanent Railway employee with a clean service record, with no criminal antecedents.
Opposing the application, the counsel for the State argued that the allegations involve a substantial amount of public money and were not limited to physical handling of cash by the employee posted at the booking counter.
Per the prosecution, the alleged offence was the result of a preplanned conspiracy involving Railway Employees. The State opposed the applicant's claim that she was on leave, submitting that her not handling physical cash does not conclusively rule out her involvement in the alleged conspiracy at the stage of anticipatory bail.
It was submitted that the investigating agency needed to ascertain the role of each accused, examine relevant documents and records, and confront the accused with statements of persons connected with transactions.
The court noted that at the stage of considering anticipatory bail, it could not delve into a detailed appreciation of evidence. The bench noted that the allegations concern misappropriation of Railway cash amounting to ₹4.47 lakhs.
The bench held, "The prosecution case is not confined merely to the physical handling of the cash by the employee posted at the booking counter; rather, an allegation of a preplanned conspiracy involving Railway employees has been levelled. Therefore, the fact that the applicant was allegedly on sanctioned leave on the relevant date or was not physically handling the cash cannot, at this stage, conclusively rule out her alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy".
Regarding the applicant's contention that another employee was held liable in the findings of the departmental enquiry, the court held,
"The finding recorded in a departmental inquiry may be a relevant circumstance, but it does not by itself conclusively determine the criminal liability of another person against whom an allegation of conspiracy is under investigation".
The bench, rejecting the contention of delay in filing the FIR, held that mere delay in lodging the FIR by itself cannot at this stage prove the prosecution case to be false or motivated.
The bench noted that investigating agency is investigating the complete role of the accused person and the manner in which the alleged shortage of tickets occurred. The bench held that the requirement of custodial interrogation cannot be ruled out.
Accordingly, the bench was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail and rejected the application.
Case TItle: Smt Bhawna Rai v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-38002-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 335
For Applicant: Advocate Sandeep Dubey
For State: Government Advocate BK Upadhyay