Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonil Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26297
1 MCRC-47616-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47616 of 2025
SONIL JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Jai Prakash Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The applicant has filed this first application under Section 482 of
BNSS/438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.447/2025
registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna for the offence punishable
under Section 112, 49 of BNS and Section 4(A) of the Public Gambling Act.
As per prosecution story, it is alleged against the applicant/accused
Sonil Jain that, along with co-accused Gagan Sikarwar and Ishu Sharma, he
formed a group or acted as a member of a gang and, on 21.09.2025, during
the India-Pakistan cricket match, engaged in online betting, thereby had
committed a minor organized offence punishable under Section 4(A) of the
Public Gambling (Madhya Pradesh) Act, 1976, read with Sections 112 and
49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged offences
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26297
2 MCRC-47616-2025
carry a maximum punishment of seven years. Reliance was placed on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and
Another, [2014 (8) SCC 273], which directs that in offences punishable with
imprisonment up to seven years, police should avoid unnecessary arrests. It
was argued that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail, and arrest should
be resorted to only after recording reasons and when necessary for
investigation.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for
its rejection.
Having heard the parties and perusing the case diary, this Court finds
that the offences registered against the applicant are punishable with
imprisonment up to seven years. In view of judgment of the Apex Court in
the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar ( supra), the police may resort
to arrest only when necessary and if the applicant fails to cooperate with the
investigation. The applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the
investigation, and if he does so, arrest should not be effected.
The guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh
Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra) for offences punishable up to seven years
are as follows:
"9.1 Section 41 Cr.P.C. mandates that arrest should not be
made merely because a person is accused of an offence punishable
up to seven years. Arrest is justified only if necessary to prevent
further offences, ensure proper investigation, prevent tampering
with evidence, or secure the attendance of the accused in court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26297
3 MCRC-47616-2025
9.2 The police officer must record reasons in writing for
either making or not making an arrest.
9.3 Section 41-A Cr.P.C. requires issuance of a notice to
appear before the police where arrest is not required. Compliance
with the notice generally precludes arrest unless reasons are
recorded."
In view of the above principles and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Court directs as under:
i) The police may effect arrest of the applicant only if
deemed necessary after his failure to cooperate in the
investigation.
ii) The applicant shall first be summoned to cooperate in the
investigation. If he cooperates, there shall be no occasion for
arrest.
With the above directions, the present anticipatory bail application is
disposed of.
CC as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
