Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pravin Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22441
1 MCRC-33945-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33945 of 2025
PRAVIN DWIVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Shri Ajay Bagadia appeared for the applicant with
Ms. Saily Purandare-Adv.
Shri Tarun Pagare -Govt. Adv. appeared on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
ORDER
1] This is applicant's first application under Section 482 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code,
1973) for grant of anticipatory bail, as he/she is apprehending his/her arrest
in connection with Crime No.20/2017 registered at Police Station Simrole
District- Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467,468,
120-B of the IPC.
2] Allegations against the applicant is of fraud.
3] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that admittedly, the
criminal case was initially registered at Crime no.20/2027 and at that time
three persons were made as accused viz. Arvind Wanjari Manisha Soni and
Rishi Dhakad for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22441
2 MCRC-33945-2025
of the IPC. however, the investigation was kept open under Section 173(8) of
the Cr.P.C. and in the aforesaid case, the trial has also been concluded
whereas Manisha Soni and Rishi Dhakad have already been acquitted;
whereas Arvind Wanjari has been convicted for offence punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. It is further submitted that there
was no reason for the prosecution not to prosecute the applicant at that time
however, subsequently, on the basis of the statement of one of the
subsequent purchaser of the plot the present applicant has now been
arraigned as accused in the aforesaid case. It is also submitted that the
applicant has never absconded and was all the time available. Counsel has
also submitted that in the judgment of the trial Court, the name of co-accused
Praveen Gupta is also mentioned as the person involved in the case;whereas
there was no reference of the present applicant's name in the entire
judgment. In such circumstances, the application be allowed as the custodial
interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary.
5] Counsel for the respondent / Stat has opposed the prayer and it is
submitted that co-accused Sourabh is absconding and thus, no case for grant
of anticipatory bail is made out.
6] On due consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the
case diary, as also the judgment of the trial court, and also taking note of the
fact that the applicant was never declared as absconding, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not
necessary in the present case. In view of the same, applicant has made out a
case for grant of anticipatory bail.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22441
3 MCRC-33945-2025
7] Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the
event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his/her 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).
8] The applicant shall make himself/herself available for
interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He/she shall further
abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
moni
