Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashutosh Alies Ashu Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41918
1 MCRC-36408-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36408 of 2025
ASHUTOSH ALIES ASHU PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Satyendra Jyotishi - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Chandra Mohan Tiwari-Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This first application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of anticipatory
bail.
2. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.141 of 2025 of Police Station- Gosalpur, District-Jabalpur (MP) for
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4),
316(5), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act.
3 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was
posted as a Computer Operator at the Gosalpur Centre of the Greater Seva
Sahkari Samiti, Bela. It is further submitted that a common allegation has
been levelled against the present applicant, without any specific role being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41918
2 MCRC-36408-2025
attributed to him individually. It is also urged that the applicant has filed a
list containing the signatures of the In-charge, the Samiti Prabhandak, and
the Computer Operator. The said list includes details such as the truck
number, the name of the driver, and the driver's mobile number. Learned
counsel for the applicant further submits that the delivery order was issued
by the District Manager of the Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies
Corporation to the Samiti Prabhandak. The applicant duly made all the
entries that were required to be made by him. If any discrepancies exist, they
are due to the fault of the Computer Operator posted at the headquarters, who
failed to make the appropriate entries. On these grounds, it is urged that the
applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand
has opposed the application.
5. This Court has examined submissions of learned counsel for the
parties in the light of evidence/documents available on record.
6 . Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to discuss the
law pertaining to grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram VS. Directorate of
Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 has discussed the issue and has held in para
69 and 77, as under:-
" 69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the
investigation to secure not only the presence of the
accused but several other purposes. Power under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the
same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the
pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional
cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court
has to be properly exercised after application of mind as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41918
3 MCRC-36408-2025
to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility
of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide
whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in
the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the
court must be circumspect while exercising such power
for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to
be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted
only when the court is convinced that exceptional
circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary
remedy.
77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
Vs State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 and other
judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai
Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4
SCC 379, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory
bail in a serious offence are required to be
satisfied and further while granting such
relief, the court must record the reasons
therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted
only in exceptional circumstances where the
court is prima facie of the view that the
applicant has falsely been enroped in the
crime and would not misuse his liberty."
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and
another, (2022) 17 SCC 391 has also held as under:-
"12..................................................................................In
many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one
common argument being canvassed that no custodial
interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail
may be granted. There appears to be a serious
misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that
alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects
to be considered along with other grounds while
deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There
may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation
of the accused may not be required, but that does not
mean that the prima facie case against the accused should
be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted
anticipatory bail.The first and foremost thing that the
court hearing an anticipatory bail application should
consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to
decline custodial interrogation. However, even if
custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41918
4 MCRC-36408-2025
itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
9. Evidently, at the time of incident, applicant was posted as
Computer Operator and he was required to make entries on online portal and
allegations against the present applicant is that he generated fake and forged
truck challan/paddy challan etc.
10. Having regard to applicant's responsibilities as well as evidence
available on record, prima- facie, it cannot be said that he has been falsely
implicated in the case. In the instant case, custodial interrogation of the
applicant may also be required.
11. In view of aforesaid, in this Court's opinion, no case for grant of
anticipatory bail is made out.
1 2 . Accordingly, application filed by the applicant is hereby
dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
