1. This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicants/accused under Section 482 of B.N.S.S./439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.156/2025 registered at Police Station Crime Branch Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 275, 276, 320, 61(2) of BNS, 2023.

2. Learned senior counsel for applicants submits that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that in July-August, 2025, M.P. Tourism Department invited the quotations and placed the order. In pursuance to that order, articles were supplied by applicant No.2 Divyani Mukharji. There are two firms; first firm is Ganesh Traders, proprietor of which is applicant No.2 - Divyani Mukharji and the second firm is Siddhi Vinayak Traders, proprietor of which is Aditya (son of applicants). It is further submitted that they have supplied all the articles, but the M.P. Tourism Department was not giving payment, therefore, they made a complaint in the C.M. Helpline. Therefore, M.P. Tourism Department has made false allegations that articles which were supplied to the M.P. Tourism Department are of sub-standard and low quality. It is further submitted that payment of Rs.22,37,000- has been paid and it is alleged by the M.P. Tourism Department that the real value of articles supplied to the Tourism Department is of Rs.10,97,000/- and they are claiming that excess payment of Rs.11,41,151/- has been made to this firm. In that regard, present FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 - Sanjay Mukharji has no role in this case. He is neither the proprietor of any firm nor he has supplied any article. It is submitted that offnce u/s 275 and 276 of BNS,2023 is not made out. It is further submitted u/s 35(3) of BNSS notice cannot be sent through Whatsapp and service of notice through physical mode is necessary. He has placed reliance on Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigtion and another, (M.A. No. 2034/2022) SLP (Crl.) No. 5191/2021 dated 15.01.2026. It is further submitted that maximum punishment prescribed for alleged offence is up to 7 years and accused will not be arrested in mechanical manner. In this regard he has placed reliance in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 . It is further submitted that earlier one complaint was made by the present complainant at Police Station Shyamla Hills, District Bhopal, at that time, applicant has appeared before the said police station and cooperated in the investigation. Applicants have no criminal record and their custodial interrogation is not required. In these circumstances, applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for objector as well as State have submitted that co- accused Anil Kurup who was the Regional Director in the M.P. Tourism Department, has authority of rupees upto one lac for purchase and maintenance and beyond that limit he will have to seek approval of the Regional Manager, but in the present case co-accused Anil Kurup has placed the order to the aforesaid two firms of Rs.80,81,000/- without prior approval of the Regional Manager. It is further submitted that Rs.22,00,000/- was paid and the present firms demanded remaining amount then this matter came into the knowledge of the higher officials. The Accounts Section of this department referred this matter to the finance department and two committees were formed. One enquiry was conducted by the Company Secretary Sandesh Yashlah and the second enquiry was conducted by Rajesh Gupt, Chief Manager. In the aforesaid enquiry, it was found that articles which were supplied by the applicants are of sub-standard and low quality.

4. It is further submitted that both firms are running in one PAN No. It is further submitted that GSTIN of Aditya Enterprises was cancelled in 2023 and the said firm was closed in 2020. It is further submitted that in the address, which is shown in the bills, the said firm is not functioning. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 Sanjay Mukharji is also involved in the present case. It is further submitted that on the report dated 24.09.2025, applicants are found responsible. It is further submitted that applicants are not appearing before the police and not cooperating with the investigation.

5. It is further submitted that as per the government guidelines, tender quotations should be invited from the different person and different group, but in this case applicants entered into criminal conspiracy in collusion with other accused persons and all the quotations were invited from the firms belonging to the same family of applicants and their son which shows malafide intention. It is submitted that department has conducted two level enquiry in which it is found that goods were supplied in quantities far less than billed, several items were not entered in the stock register, certain goods were not of the quoted brands, and rates charged were substantially higher than Corporation-approved and prevailing market rates. The physical verification further revealed shortages of several billed items, thereby establishing that payments were secured without corresponding supply.

6. It is submitted that in the present case, custodial interrogation is required because it is a case of organized conspiracy and embezzlement of public funds. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598] and M.Cr.C.No. 163 79/2024, Nishikant v. State of Madhya Pradesh . Under such circumstances, they prayed for dismissal of anticipatory bail.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

8. Looking to the allegation levelled against the applicant no.1 Sanjay Mukharji, this Court finds fit to appropriate the grant anticipatory bail to him. As far as applicant no.2 Smt. Debjani Mukharji is concerned, the allegation against her is that she entered into criminal conspiracy in collusion with other accused persons and all the quotations were invited from the firms belonging to the same family of applicant no.2 and her son and certain goods were not of the quoted brands, and rates charged were substantially higher than Corporation-approved and prevailing market rates caused loss of Rs. 80.81 lakhs to the Corporation.

9. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., (2022) SCC Online SC 1529 wherein paragraph 12 it is held thus:-

          "12. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like Pocso and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one ofthe grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."

10. Similar is the ratio in the decision of the Supreme Court in CBI Vs. Anil Sharma. 1977 AIR SC 3806, paragraph 4 of which reads thus:-

          "4. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring would not conduct themselves as offenders."

          (emphasis supplied)

11. Considering the above, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant no.1 Sanjay Mukharji is allowed. It is directed that if the applicant is arrested by the police then he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.

12. Applicant no.1 shall abide by the following conditions under Section 480 (2) of Cr.P.C:-

          (a) Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

          (b) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to complainant or witnesses;

          (c) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

          (d) He shall not commit similar offence, of which, he is accused or suspected.

          (e) He will further abide by the condition enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 480 of the Cr.P.C.

          Looking to the allegation levelled against the applicant no.2 Smt. Debjani Mukharji, in my considered view, no case is made out by her for the grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, looking to the entire set of allegation and the role attributed to the applicant no.2 in the alleged offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to her.

13. Accordingly, present MCRC in respect of applicant no.1 Sanjay Mukharji is allowed and in respect of applicant no.2 Smt. Debjani Mukharji stands dismissed.