Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anurag Alias Anuj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25078
1 MCRC-41781-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41781 of 2025
ANURAG ALIAS ANUJ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sugam Gupta - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Harshit Raghuwanshi - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Hemant Kumar Bhargava- Advocate for complainant.
ORDER
This is the second application under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant. Applicant apprehends his arrest in
connection with Crime No.113/2025 registered at Police Station Tyonda
District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2),
351(3), 118(1) of BNS. His earlier bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 21.07.2025 passed in MCRC No.30468/2025.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 08.06.2025 at about 01-02.00 PM,
an altercation took place between the family members of the complainant
side and the applicant. The present applicant along with other co-accused
persons committed marpeet with the complainant side and cause grievous
injuries. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
3 . Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant is innocent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25078
2 MCRC-41781-2025
and has been falsely implicated in this matter. He is a young body aged about
20 years and has a bright carrier. There is no specific allegation against the
present applicant and also there is no over act attributable to the present
applicant. It is further contended that at the time of incident, the present
applicant was not present on the spot of incident. The applicant has not
criminal or tainted past. Under the similar set of facts and allegations, some
other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail. Co-accused
Ramsakhi Bai and Surbhi have already been granted benefit of anticipatory
bail by the trial court itself. The another co-accused Ramsevak has also been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.35245/2025. The act of the present applicant is also similar or
even on the better footing than those co-accused persons who have been
granted benefit of anticipatory bail. Investigation is over and charge-sheet
has already been filed. Applicant is permanent resident of District Vidisha,
therefore, there is no apprehension of his absconsion and final conclusion of
trial will take long sufficient time. Hence, on the basis of above circumstance
and on the ground of parity, he prays that applicant be enlarged on
anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the prayer
by submitting that there is active role of the present applicant in the aforesaid
criminal act. He also submitted that after withdrawal of the earlier bail
application, there is no change of circumstances. Therefore, this application
is not maintainable. Hence, his bail application may not be allowed.
5. In reply, learned counsel for applicant contended that after
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25078
3 MCRC-41781-2025
withdrawal of the earlier bail application, the accused persons
namely, Ramsakhi Bai and Surbhi and Ramsevak have been enlarged on
anticipatory bail by the trial court as well as by this Court. Therefore, there is
very much change of circumstance.
6. In support of his submissions and on the point of maintainability,
learned counsel for applicant placed reliance of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rani Dudeja Vs. State of Haryana ( dated
30.03.2017), (2017) 100 ACrC 309 and on the judgement passed by learned
Division Bench of this Court in case M.Cr.C. No.648/1995 (Imratlal
Vishwakarma and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on
09.02.1996 reported in 1996 (0) MPLJ 662.
7. Learned counsel for complainant also vehemently opposed the bail
application by submitting that the present applicant by way of taking active
participation in the aforesaid incident has cause grievous injuries to the
complainant. The complainant is still undergoing treatment and not
discharged yet. It is also contended that the applicant is absconding.
8. Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
9 . After considering the whole arguments at length and perusing the
documents available on record, it appears that all the points raised by counsel
for applicant have already been discussed in detail length and considered
while dismissing earlier bail of applicant.
10. The applicant has claimed parity with co-accused Ramsewak who
has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025
passed in M.Cr.C. No.35245/2025. But, from perusal of the aforesaid order,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25078
4 MCRC-41781-2025
it is evident that the applicant/accused therein-Ramsewak was granted
benefit of anticipatory bail only looking to his old age who is aged about 80
years. The applicant has also claimed parity with co-accused persons
Ramsakhi Bai and Surabhi who have been granted anticipatory bail by the
trial court. From perusal of the aforesaid order of the trial court, it is evident
that those accused have been granted benefit of bail only there being lady.
Therefore, the claim present applicant of having parity is not acceptable.
11. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of the case also taking note of the fact that the present applicant is
absconding, the nature of allegations levelled against applicant and manner
in which the applicant is involved in the offence, as alleged by the
prosecution and no new ground exists in this application as well as there is
no change of circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case for grant
of anticipatory bail is made out at this juncture.
12. Consequently, the application sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
