Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gagan Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27566
1 MCRC-49702-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 31st OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49702 of 2025
GAGAN SIKARWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Singh Jadoun - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for respondent/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
that, along with co-accused Sonil Jain 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27566
2 MCRC-49702-2025
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged offences
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:27566
3 MCRC-49702-2025
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
ojha
