High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunil Sharma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 13 October 2025 · Citation: (2025) 10 MP CK 1436

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subodh Abhyanka, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354, 380, 457
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 46601 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

10 paragraphs · 406 words

Subodh Abhyankar, J

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

2] This is the first application filed by the applicant 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.257/2025 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C.

3] The allegation against the applicant is of theft of a motorcycle.

4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the date of incident is stated to be of 31.7.2023 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 11.5.2025 and there is already a dispute going on between the parties as the daughter of the applicant had earlier lodged a case under the POCSO Act against the father of the complainant, and only as a counter blast the present case has been registered and in the said case the applicant has not compromised the matter.

5] Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that one more case under section 354 of IPC, has been registered against the applicant, and in that case when the applicant had gone to the police station at that time, it was found that he was having that motor cycle, and thus, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

6] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the aforesaid case the applicant has already been acquitted.

7] Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the case-diary, and taking note of the fact that the FIR has been lodged after around two years, and it appears to be certain animosity between the parties, thus, this Court finds that the custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary.

8] 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.

9] Accordingly, MCRC stands allowed.