Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Gaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27154
1 MCRC-45151-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45151 of 2025
ANIL GAUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Sharma - Learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Bhavya
Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C/483 of the
BNSS for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 16.09.2025 in
connection with Crime No.1006/2024 registered at Police Station - Civil
Line Vidisha, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence punishable under
Section 420, 406 of IPC.
2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant Kailash Raghuvanshi
made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha upon
which an enquiry was made and on that basis, the aforesaid offence was
registered. According to the F.I.R., the co-accused Anil Gaur, Director,
D.O.F. Green India Private Ltd, executed an agreement with the wife of the
complainant, namely Smt. Geeta Raghuvanshi and according to which, Anil
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27154
2 MCRC-45151-2025
Gaur assured the complainant that if he would pay him Rs.50,00,000/-, then
Anil Gaur would provide organic fertilizer to the complainant and according
to this assurance, as per the prosecution case, Smt. Geeta Raghuvanshi paid
Rs.25,00,000/- in cash and a cheque of Rs.25,00,000/- to the co-accused
Anil Gaur, who also assured the complainant that he would be C&F of the
company. Anil Gaur failed to comply with the condition of the agreement;
therefore, after about nine months of the alleged incident, the F.I.R. was
registered against Anil Gaur and others.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is suffering
confinement since 16.09.2025. Applicant has three minor children. No
money has been misappropriated by the present applicant. The overall
allegation against the present applicant is that there was MoU signed to
make the complainant as Stockist in the company and committed fraud with
the complainant of Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, if there was any dispute regarding
money the matter should have been gone before Arbitrator for arbitration. It
is not a criminal case, but purely a case of civil liabilities, therefore, criminal
liabilities cannot be fastened to the present applicant. Because it may be
breach of contract. It is also noteworthy to mention that from the
complainant side, a case has also been registered under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, two cases for the similar relief
cannot be adjudicated simultaneously because it causes double jeopardy to
the applicant and the same is also against the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that during course of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27154
3 MCRC-45151-2025
arrest of applicant, guidelines of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 8
SCC 273] were not complied with, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly
mandated that both reasons of arrest and grounds of arrest are to be clearly
explained to the accused.
5. It is further submitted that in a company like in the instant case, all
the decisions related with financial transactions or other similar matters, the
decision is taken by the clear mandate of Board of Directors. In the present
case, the complainant is also one of the members of the Board of Directors
because there was an agreement executed between the complainant and the
accused persons, therefore, if the prosecution story is believed in toto, then
the complainant himself would be treated as accused in the instant case.
There is no previous criminal antecedent against the present applicant. No
custodial interrogation is required in the matter. It is also mentioned that the
wife of the complainant has also issued a legal notice to Anil Gaur under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Applicant is permanent
resident of District Bhopal (M.P.); therefore, there is no apprehension of his
absconsion and final conclusion of trial will take long sufficient time. It is
further submitted that co-accused Pramod Malviya has already been granted
bail vide order dated 25.09.2025 passed in MCRC No.43874/2025 by this
Court. Learned counsel for applicant placed reliance over the various
judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court to support his submissions.
Therefore, under these grounds as well as on the ground of parity, counsel
for the applicant prayed for bail.
6 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27154
4 MCRC-45151-2025
opposed the bail application and submitted that the present applicant has
committed the same act of misappropriating the money to the 15 other
persons also. The above submission is also supported by the affidavits of the
said persons. It is further submitted that a deliberate act of fraud committed
by the applicant from the inception of the transaction. The applicant under a
premeditated design, dishonestly induced the complainant to part with his
money on a false assurance of partnership and subsequently fabricated
documents to cover up the fraudulent act. It is further submitted that the
investigation is still at a crucial stage; custodial interrogation of the applicant
is required in the matter. Therefore, the bail application may kindly be
dismissed.
7 . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case
diary.
8 . The case, in hand, is of misappropriation of a huge amount of
complainant. The applicant is alleged to have duped the innocent persons by
way of alluring them to invest in his firm and get profit. Not only with the
present applicant, but with 15 other persons, the same act has been done.
The applicant has received the alleged misappropriated money in his
account, therefore, he appears to be the main accused in the case.
Investigation is going on and many layer are yet to be come into and many
other victims may be there. The judgements referred by the counsel for
applicant are not applicable in the instant case because all the judgements
have been passed at the stage of quashing of FIR (after completion of
investigation and framing of charge), therefore, at the stage of bail, the above
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27154
5 MCRC-45151-2025
citations are not applicable.
9 . I n P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement , (2019) 9 SCC
24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited
with a different approach in the matter of bail. The gravity of the
offence, the magnitude of the financial misappropriation, and the
impact on the society are relevant considerations."
10. In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2013)
7 SCC 466, it was observed:
"Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public or individual funds are to be viewed
seriously and are considered grave offences affecting the financial
health of the community."
11. I n State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal , (1987) 2 SCC
364, the Apex Court held that:
"The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders
who ruin the financial credibility of the system are not brought to
book and dealt with sternly."
12. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI , (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Court
held:
"Economic offences are committed with deliberate design with an
eye on personal profit regardless of the consequences to the
community."
The ratio of the above decisions makes it clear that offences
involving financial fraud and dishonest inducement require the Court to
adopt a cautious approach in granting bail.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27154
6 MCRC-45151-2025
13. From the material on record, it is evident that the applicant's act
was not a mere breach of contract but a deliberate and preplanned fraud
committed for wrongful gain. The amount involved, though Rs.50,00,000/-,
represents the trust and savings of an individual, and the act of cheating
under the guise of partnership has eroded the complainant's faith and
confidence in business dealings. Given the gravity of the offence, the prima
facie evidence of fraudulent intention, and the ongoing investigation, this
Court is of the opinion that releasing the applicant on bail at this stage may
prejudice the investigation and may lead to tampering with witnesses or
destruction of evidence.
14. Considering the above discussion and nature and seriousness of
the allegations as well as the looking to the quantum involved and the settled
legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments
as referred above, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant bail to the
applicant at this stage.
15. Accordingly, the application sans merits and is hereby dismissed .
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Rashid
