High CourtsSingle Bench

Dayashankar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 10 October 2025 · Citation: (2025) 10 MP CK 1439

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subodh Abhyankar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 41, 438, 438(2) · Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj And Gram Swaraj Act, 1993 — Section 89 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 409
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 46204 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 438 words

Subodh Abhyankar, J

1] They are heard. Perused the case-diary.

2] This is the first application filed by the applicant Dinesh under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.302/2022 (Cr. C. No.UNCR/168/2025)registered at Police Station Badgonda Tahsil Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 89 of M.P. Panchayat Rajya Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993.

3] It is alleged that the applicant was involved in the aforesaid case wherein he was earlier issued notice under section 41 of CRPC and he also appeared before the Invesitigating Authority, and at the time of filing of the charge sheet on 29.7.2024 he also appeared in the trial Court, wherein he was also granted regular bail. However, subsequently, the trial Court also took cognizance under Section 409 of the IPC after around three months from the date of filing of the charge sheet and in such cirumstances, the applicant is apprehending that if he appears in the trial Court, he might be arrested, and thus, the present application has been filed.

4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applican has cooperated in the investigation throughout, and only because of section 409 of IPC, he might be arrested. It is also submitted that at the relevant time, he was the Sachiv of Gram Panchayat. In such circumstances, the application be allowed

5] Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.

6] Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the case diary as also the documents filed on record, under the facts and circumstances of the case when the applicant has already been granted bail by the trial Court on the, same set of facts, the trial Court has also taken cognizance of section 409 of IPC, this Court does not find that it is a case where the custodial interrogation of the applicant would be necessary.

7] Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer). The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

8] Accordingly, MCRC stands allowed.