Mohanlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J

1 . This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.413/2025 registered at Police Station - Mahidpur, District Ujjain(M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the offence is related to Year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The FIR is registered on 27/10/2025.He further submits that the Internal Committee has also not found anything against present applicant. There is negligence found on the part of CMO. Present applicant, who is innocent, has been implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused Prakash recorded under section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. He further submits that the applicant is having reputation in the society and he will have to face unnecessary difficulty, if he is not granted anticipatory bail. He will cooperate in the investigation Therefore, the application for grant of anticipatory bail be allowed.

Counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by counsel for the applicant by submitting that bare reading of statement of co-accused Prakash, clearly indicates the role of present applicant Mohanlal as well as similarly situated person / co-accused Mukesh. He has submitted that the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Mukesh has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 07/05/2026 passed in MCRC no. 20509 of 2026, He further submits that although the FIR was lodged on 27/10/2025, applicant is not co-operating in the process of investigation till date. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of this anticipatory bail application.

I have heard the rival submissions of the both the parties and also perused the case diary.

5 . Perusal of the statement of co-accused Prakash; clearly indicates the role of present applicant and does not absolve the applicant of the allegations. The incident in question has taken place in the year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, the nature of the offences and the lack of specific rebuttal by the applicant necessitate proper investigation. Consequently, custodial interrogation is required by the concerned authority. The anticipatory bail application of similarly situated co- accused Mukesh has already been rejected by this Court. In view of the above, as the application involves matters of public money and the applicant has failed to show any substantial change in circumstances to entertain second bail application for anticipatory bail, therefore, the present application is liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, present application is dismissed. CC as per rules.