The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to a woman Deputy Superintendent of Police accused of misappropriating funds during an alleged hawala interception operation in Madhya Pradesh, taking note of her prolonged custody, the stage of trial, and the fact that her minor child was lodged in jail with her.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Lakhnwada, District Seoni, for offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 126(2), 114(3), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, a police officer, along with other members of a police team, intercepted a Hyundai Creta vehicle on the intervening night of October 8 and 9, 2025. The vehicle was allegedly carrying cash linked to hawala transactions. The prosecution alleged that ₹2.96 crore was recovered from the occupants, Irfan and Mukhtar, but that the police team subsequently restrained them and took them to a secluded location.

It was further alleged that, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, the accused police officials misappropriated ₹1.45 crore from the recovered amount while permitting the occupants to leave with the remaining money. The prosecution claimed that the amount was later kept at the office premises of the concerned officer. The FIR came to be registered following a complaint alleging that the money was part of a hawala network operated by one Swami Lal Parmar.

Petitioner submitted before the Court that all co-accused except one had already been granted bail and that the petitioner had remained in custody for seven months. It was further pointed out that charges had not yet been framed and that the prosecution proposed to examine as many as 63 witnesses, indicating that the trial would take considerable time to conclude. It was emphasised that the petitioner was a single mother and that her two-to-three-year-old child was living with her inside the jail premises.

Opposing the plea, the State argued that the petitioner was the “prime accused” and had led the police raid party. It was contended that mandatory procedural records were not prepared in accordance with standard police practice and that the allegations against the petitioner were grave in nature.

After hearing both sides, the Bench Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi  observed that the matter was presently at the stage of consideration on charge and that the conclusion of trial would take “a reasonable time.” Taking note of the petitioner’s custody period, her status as a woman officer and single mother, and the absence of any likelihood of her absconding or interfering with trial proceedings, the Bench held that the case warranted the grant of bail.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the counter-allegations raised by the parties.

Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Appearances

Senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and Sridhar Potaraju