logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 341 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@SLP(Crl.) No. 20087 of 2025)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
Parties : Ajay Kumarshringi Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ----- For the Respondent: -----
Date of Judgment : 12-01-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Anticipatory bail
- Custodial interrogation
- Interim protection

3. Summary:
The Court noted that a state‑wise scrutiny of nursing colleges, prompted by Writ Petition No. 1080 of 2022, classified the appellant’s college as deficient, leading to FIR No. 104 of 2024 for alleged non‑conduct of examinations and infrastructural lapses. While the State seeks custodial interrogation to uncover alleged fraud, the Court had earlier granted interim protection to the appellant. Since no notice has been issued by the investigating officer, the Court directed the appellant to appear before the investigating officer on hearing dates and cooperate with the investigation. The appellant is to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional investigating officer, who may impose conditions. Non‑compliance may lead to bail cancellation. The appeal is allowed.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. Perused the records. On account of Writ Petition No. 1080 of 2022 having been registered, state wise scrutiny of Nursing Colleges was undertaken by the State authorities and the college belonging to the appellant was also categorized as 'deficient'. On the basis of the same an FIR No. 104 of 2024 came to be registered by Chief Block Medical Officer, Astha alleging non-conducting of the examinations and there being infrastructural deficiencies in the said institution. In fact, all the accused except the appellant, have been enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State would contend that appellant had committed fraud and to unearth the said fraud perpetrated on the State, his custodial interrogation is required.

5. This Court on 07.01.2026 had granted interim protection to the appellant. However, no notice as on date, has been issued to the appellant by the Investigating Officer (IO) to appear for the investigation. Hence, we are of the considered view, to allay the apprehension of the prosecution, it would suffice to direct the appellant to appear on all dates of hearing when called upon to appear by IO and cooperate with such investigation including production of the records, if any, in his custody.

6. Subject to the same, the appellant is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional IO and he may impose such conditions as he deems fit to impose. With these observations, the appeal stands allowed.

7. It is made clear that non-compliance of the abovesaid directions, would entitle the respondent/prosecution to move the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal