The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to 78 year old reitered IFS and ex-serviceman accused in a cheating and forgery case, observing that merely because an amount was credited into his bank account, by itself, is insufficient to conclude that he was knowingly involved. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 336]

The bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari noted that the petitioner has provided an explanation regarding the amount credited and no evidence was shown that he was likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence the witness.

Thus, the bench directed:

"Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that, at this stage, the mere fact that an amount was credited into the bank account of the applicant, by itself, would not be sufficient to conclude that the applicant was knowingly involved in the commission of the alleged offences. The applicant has furnished a specific explanation that his bank and debit-card details had been obtained by an unknown person on the pretext of assisting him in obtaining an insurance amount and the subsequent transactions were carried out without his knowledge". 

An application seeking anticipatory bail was filed by the petitioner, a retired IFS officer and ex-serviceman, for offences including cheating (Section 420) and forgery (Section 467) of the IPC. 

Per the prosecution, a complaint was lodged on July 13, 2024, alleging that various persons posing as representatives of SBI Life, Bharti AXA, Kotak Life and other institutions obtained a total amount of ₹26.11 lakhs from him through various bank accounts and electronic modes by making false representations, using forged documents, and giving misleading assurances in the name of insurance. 

Investigation revealed that a total of ₹15.15 lakhs was transferred by the complainant into the applicant's bank account between July 6 and December 26, 2023, which prima facie appeared to be proceeds of the alleged crime. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he retired from service in 2008. In 2023, he received unknown messages and calls from a person who introduced himself as a helper in obtaining an insurance amount. The said person obtained the petitioner's bank account details. 

It was argued that owing to the petitioner's old age and belief that he was required to receive an insurance amount, he placed faith in said caller and disclosed details of his debit card. 

Thereafter, the police called the petitioner on June 24, 2026, regarding the said deposit in his account. The petitioner discovered that he was shown as accused 9 in the crime. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had no knowledge regarding the withdrawal or utilization of the disputed amount and merely because certain transactions happened through his bank account, the same does not establish his involvement in the offence. 

The counsel further informed the court that the petitioner only used a basic keypad phone and was a permanent resident of Karnataka. He had sought interim protection from the Karnataka High Court to approach this High Court for relief. 

The counsel for the State argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and related to an economic offence. The counsel argued that the petitioner's bank account was directly used to receive the alleged proceeds of crime, and therefore his involvement cannot be ruled out at this stage. 

The State argued that custodial interrogation may be necessary to ascertain the circumstances in which his bank account was used and by whom. 

The court noted that the petitioner had frnished specific explaination that his bank and debit card details were obtained by an unknown person on the pretext of helping him obtain the insurance amount. 

The bench also noted, "the material allegations primarily relate to banking and electronic transactions which can be investigated through documentary and electronic evidence, this Court is of the view that custodial detention of the applicant is not shown to be indispensable at this stage". 

The bench also took note of the applicant's advanced age, his status as a retired IFS officer and ex-serviceman, and the absence of criminal antecedents. Therefore, the court deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 

Case Title: Govindappa Jayaramaiah v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-38769-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 336

For Petitioner: Advocate Sandeep Kumar Sen

For Complainant: Advocates Bhanu Pratap Yadav and Shivani Raikwar

For State: Government Advocate Amit Pandey 

Click here to read/download the Order

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

Click here to read/download the Order

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a package or comprehensive insurance policy by itself does not cover unlimited liability, including unlimited risk to passengers in a vehicle, unless the policy provides for the same. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 334]

Noting that the owner had not paid for a higher premium for covering unlimited risk, the bench of Justice Vinay Saraf observed:

"the legal position prevailing as on today is that the liability of the Insurance Company will depend upon the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and only by mentioning the policy as Comprehensive / Package Policy in itself will not cover the unlimited risk of the passenger in a vehicle. If the terms and conditions of the policy provides unlimited liability of the Insurance Company, then only the Insurance Company will be liable for payment of the entire compensation, otherwise the liability of the Insurance Company will be limited up to the terms of the policy". 

The order was passed in a miscellaneous appeal filed by the MP State Mining Corporation, challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has partly allowed the claim of the claimants and granted ₹28 Lakh as compensation, with the direction that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to ₹1 Lakh only. 

Another miscellaneous appeal was filed by the claimants for declaring the unlimited liability of the insurance company and enhancement of the compensation amount. 

Per the facts, on February 20, 2012, around 4 pm, the deceased Ravinder Shah was travelling in a car with the President Govind Malu of MP State Mining Corporation Limited from Indore to Bhopal. Due to rash and negligent driving at high speed, the car turned turtle, and the deceased Ravindra Shah sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same spot. The other passengers also sustained injuries. 

The incident was reported at District Sehore, and an offence was registered against the driver Rishi, and a chargesheet was filed against him. 

Thereafter, the family of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of ₹ 1.25 lakh against the driver, owner and insurance company, wherein the insurance company claimed that the liability was limited to ₹1 Lakh as per policy terms. 

The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the Driver, resulting in the death of passenger Ravindra Shah. The Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to 128 Lakh compensation, but the liability of the insurance company was limited to ₹1 Lakh. 

The owner of the vehicle/appellant filed the miscellaneous appeal, contending that the liability of the insurance company was not limited, as it was under an obligation to indemnify the complete liability of the owner. Relying on the circular of November 16, 2009, by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), the owner contended that the circular mandates covering the whole liability of compensation towards the occupants of the private vehicle when issuing a Private Car Package Policy. 

The counsel appearing for the owner contended that since the owner had purchased the Comprehensive Package, the Insurance Company was obligated and cannot aviod their liability. 

The counsel for the claimants, supporting the owner's arguments, submitted that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited as a comprehensive insurance policy was purchased. 

The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that so far as the passenger is concerned, the liability of the insurer is limited per the provisions of Section 147 of the Act of 1988. However, the insured can pay an additional higher premium and get higher risk covered for the passenger also. But in the absence of such a clause in the insurance policy, the liability of the insurer cannot be held unlimited in respect of passengers, and it is limited to statutory liability towards a third-party risk. 

Referring to the Supreme Court case of National Insurance Company Limited v Balakrishnan [2013 1 SCC 731], the counsel for the company reiterated that the Act Policy stands on a different footing from the Comprehensive/Package Policy.

The court noted that the Insurance Company collected the premium of ₹200 for the risk of four passengers in the vehicle, and the liability covered was upto ₹1Lakh per passenger only. The court held that if the owner had not paid the higher premium for covering unlimited risk, the Company could not be held liable for the entire compensation amount due to the death of a passenger. 

Thus, the bench held that, "just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case should be Rs. 37,62,833/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs. 28,86,616/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to get enhanced amount of Rs. 8,76,217/- over and above the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the owner M.A. no. 2467/2014 is dismissed and the appeal preferred by the claimants M.A. no. 151/2015 is partly allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove". 

Case Title: MP Mining Corporation v United India Insurance, MISC. APPEAL No. 2467 of 2014

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 334

For Mining Corporation: Advocate Kantesh Kumar Gupta

For United Insurance Company: Advocate Pradip Kumar Gupta

For Claimants: Advocate Swapnil Sharma

Click here to read/download the Order