Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harendra Singh Dhakre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13941
1 MCRC-29282-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 8 th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29282 of 2025
HARENDRA SINGH DHAKRE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Raj Kumar
Shrivastava- Advocates for applicant.
Shri Dinesh Savita- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This first application filed by the applicant u/S. 482 of BNSS/438 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No. 288 of 2015
registered at Police Station -Myana, District Guna (M.P.) for the offence
under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC.
2. The allegation levelled against the applicant is that he along with
co-accused persons, fired gunshot on the deceased Gokul Singh, due to which
he died.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present applicant that
the present applicant has been involved in this case by an order passed by the
trial Court in exercise of power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. This order has
been assailed in this Court by the applicant in CRR No.5485/2018 and the
same is pending. This order has also been assailed in this Court as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13941
2 MCRC-29282-2025
before the Hon'ble Apex Court by co-accused Anshuman, but Criminal
Revision and SLP have been dismissed vide orders dated 23.03.2022 in
Criminal Revision No.5563/2018 and 14.02.2025 in SLP (CRL)
No.6382/2022 (II-A). During the pendency of such Criminal Revision in this
Court and S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court, an interim protection was
granted to co-accused Anshuman vide order dated 25.07.2022. It is submitted
by counsel for applicant that the case of the present applicant is identical to
that of co-accused Anshuman and, therefore, he may be given the benefit of
anticipatory bail in this case and undertakes to appear regularly before the
trial Court.
4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
application on the ground that the trial Court took cognizance against the
present applicant and co-accused under for the alleged commission of murder
of the deceased Gokul Singh. It is also submitted that the said order of the
trial Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and after the
dismissal of Criminal Revision and S.L.P., the interim protection has come to
an end. Therefore, at this stage, there is no protection available to the present
applicant. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the
present applicant may apply for regular bail before the trial Court and the trial
Court shall decide the application on the merits of the case. Therefore, prays
for rejection of the anticipatory bail application.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In this case, the police had already closed the matter, so far as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13941
3 MCRC-29282-2025
applicant is concerned. The trial Court took cognizance against the present
applicant and co-accused under the provisions of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. No
question of pending investigation or filing of the charge sheet therefore
arises. Undisputedly, the interim protection which was granted by this Court
to the co-accused during the pendency of Criminal Revision and, thereafter,
by the Hon'ble Apex Court during the pendency of SLP came to an end when
such proceedings have been dismissed by the Courts. Since the order of
taking cognizance under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has been affirmed by this
Court as well as Hon"ble Apex Court, therefore, cognizance of offence of
causing of murder of deceased Gokul Singh by the present applicant and co-
accused is now prima facie attained finality. However, the issue is as to
whether the applicant is required to be arrested? The Apex Court has
considered similar issue in the case of Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau Of
Investigation reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 299.
9. On the strength of the aforesaid allegations, which are certainly serious in nature, the
prayer of the appellants for anticipatory bail is opposed vehemently by the learned
Additional Solicitor General. But in our considered view there are at least three factors
which tilt the balance in favour of the appellants herein. They are:--
(i) Admittedly, the CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the
appellants during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 (date of filing
of FIR) till 31.12.2021 (date of filing of the final report). Therefore, it is
difficult to accept the contention that at this stage the custody of the
appellants may be required;
(ii) In the reply/counter filed before the High Court, the CBI had taken a
categorical stand that the Court had merely issued summons and not warrant
for the appearance of the accused. In the case of Shri Deepak Gupta, CBI
had taken a stand before the Special Court that "the presence of the accused
is not required for the investigation but it is certainly required for trial" and
that therefore he needs to be present. Therefore, all that the CBI wanted was
the presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face trial. In such
circumstances, to oppose the anticipatory bail request at this stage may not
be proper; and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13941
4 MCRC-29282-2025
(iii) All transactions out of which the complaint had arisen, seem to have
taken place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 and all are borne out
by records. When the primary focus is on documentary evidence, we fail to
understand as to why the appellants should now be arrested.
10. More importantly, the appellants apprehend arrest, not at the behest of the CBI but
at the behest of the Trial Court. This is for the reason that in some parts of the country,
there seems to be a practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the
moment they appear in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a
practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice for the present to note that it is
not the CBI which is seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend that they may
be remanded to custody by the Trial Court and this is why they seek protection. We
must keep this in mind while deciding the fate of these appeals.
7. In the present case also, the appearance of applicant is not required in
the police and it is the Court which requires applicant's presence to stand trial.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal and
others Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2020 (5) SCC 1 and
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported
in 2011 (1) SCC 694.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without
expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is
directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on
executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Officer/Investigating Authority.
10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the applicant:-
1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by his;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13941
5 MCRC-29282-2025
2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may
be;
3) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade his from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the
Police Officer, as the case may be;
4) The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of
the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled
automatically without further reference to the Bench.
5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial; and
6) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
*AVI*
