Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manvendra Singh Parihar vs The State Of M.P. on 10 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
1 MCRC-40877-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 10 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40877 of 2025
SMT. PRIYA RALLY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sachin Gupta - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate for the complainant.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40875 of 2025
MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Sachin Gupta - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
Perused the case diary and material available on record.
The present first applications have been filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Adhiniyam, 2023/438 of the CrPC for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicants No.1 and 2, namely, Priya Rally and
Manverndra Singh Parihar, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with
Crime No.288 of 2025 registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior (M.P.)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
2 MCRC-40877-2025
in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 296, 308(7), 316(2), 316(5),
318(4), 351(3) and 61(2) of BNS.
PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF
As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, Dheeraj Prakash
Agrawal, had lodged a written complaint alleging that on 21.10.2024, Gautam Rai
Railly, Priya Rai Railly (applicant No.1), and Gulshan Rai demanded a sum of ₹50
lakhs from him for releasing a mortgaged property (residential property of
"Ajanam Shanti Prakashan") from the loan account of their firm M/s Bharat
School and Supplier. They assured him that after releasing the said property from
the bank, they would sell it for ₹3 crores and hand it over to him. Relying upon
their assurance, the complainant gave over ₹30 lakhs to Gautam Rai Railly,
obtaining his signatures on a voucher. Subsequently, on 28.10.2024, he paid
another ₹10 lakhs, and on 30.10.2024, an additional ₹10 lakhs in cash through
Manvendra (applicant No.2), an employee of Gautam Rai Railly.
Manvendra (applicant No.2) gave a signed receipt, which also mentioned the loan
account of M/s Bharat School and Supplier.
However, when the complainant noticed a public auction notice in the
newspaper Dainik Bhaskar on 05.12.2024 regarding the mortgaged property of
M/s Bharat School and Supplier with the bank, he came to know that the property
claimed by the accused persons was in fact not mortgaged with Canara Bank,
rather some other property was under mortgage. He further discovered that the
accused persons had not deposited the sum of ₹50 lakhs with the bank at all.
When the complainant tried to contact the accused persons in this regard,
they did not respond. Upon contacting Gautam Rai, he abused the complainant in
filthy language and threatened to falsely implicate him and his family members in
criminal cases. Thus, it is alleged that the accused persons, in collusion with their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
3 MCRC-40877-2025
employee Manvendra (applicant No.2), had committed fraud and had
misappropriated the complainant's money.
The written complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police,
Gwalior, who in turn directed it to the Station House Officer, Police Station
Murar, whereupon an inquiry was initiated. During investigation, the accused
persons were summoned and their statements were recorded. They claimed that in
the year 2022-23, they had entered into a property transaction with the
complainant regarding two large properties situated at Sirol, for a total
consideration of ₹20 crores 70 lakhs, against which the complainant and his
family members had allegedly paid ₹1 crore 40 lakhs. For this purpose, the
complainant had issued two cheques of Central Bank of India, Thatipur Branch--
Cheque No. 151933 dated 31.10.2024 for ₹60 lakhs, and Cheque No. 151934
dated 31.10.2024 for ₹80 lakhs. Later, the complainant allegedly gave them ₹30
lakhs (with voucher signed) and ₹10 lakhs + ₹10 lakhs through Manvendra
(applicant No.2), while taking back Cheque No.151933. However, when the
second cheque No.151934 for ₹80 lakhs was presented in the bank, it got
dishonoured, for which a case is stated to be pending before the court.
Nevertheless, when the accused persons were asked to provide factual
evidence supporting their version of monetary transactions, they failed to furnish
any documentary proof. On the other hand, the complainant produced detailed
evidence and supporting documents regarding his transactions. Accordingly, on
the basis of the investigation report, alleged crime was registered against the
applicants and other co=accused persons under Sections 296, 308(7), 316(2),
316(5), 318(4), 351(3), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The case
is presently under investigation, and the applicant along with co-accused persons
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
4 MCRC-40877-2025
have been absconding since 26.06.2025.
APPLICANTS' SUBMISSIONS:
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted before this Court that the
applicants have not committed the alleged offence, nor does the applicants have
any direct or indirect connection with the said offence. The applicants have been
falsely and maliciously implicated due to personal rivalry. The complainant, with
the ulterior motive of unlawfully retaining the applicants' money, has lodged a
false case in collusion with the police.
It is further submitted that on several previous occasions, Shri Gautam Rai
Rally had himself executed agreements in his name and sold properties to the
complainant Dheeraj Prakash Agrawal and his firms. The complainant concocted a
false and imaginary story in his application dated 01/01/2025 submitted before the
Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, however, in the said application, there is no
mention of any prior written or oral complaint made to Police Station Murar.
Ordinarily, any genuine victim would immediately approach the concerned police
station without delay.
It is further submitted that the complainant has alleged that he became aware
of the incident on 05/12/2024 and all related events took place on the same day, bu
his application dated 01/01/2025 was lodged after 25 days' delay, without any
explanation either in the application or in Column 08 of the FIR. The complainant
claims that on 05/12/2024, he came to know from the daily newspaper Dainik
Bhaskar regarding mortgage of property and he immediately visited the house of
Gautam Rai Rally at Sadar Bazar, where 4-5 armed persons allegedly abused and
threatened him, but despite such a serious incident, the complainant did not lodge
any immediate complaint at the police station. In fact, no such incident occurred
on 05/12/2024. The alleged place of incident is located on a main road surrounded
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
5 MCRC-40877-2025
by residential houses and shops, all covered by CCTV cameras. The complainant
deliberately waited until CCTV footage would automatically be deleted and then
filed the complaint on 01/01/2025.
It is further submitted that in his application dated 01/01/2025, the
complainant mentioned payment of ₹30 lakhs on 25/10/2024, ₹10 lakhs on
28/10/2024, and ₹10 lakhs on 30/10/2024 to the accused persons, totalling ₹50
lakhs and no other payments were mentioned therein. However, during
investigation, it came to light that these amounts were part of cheque no.151933
for ₹60 lakhs given by the complainant to Gautam Rai Rally. Further, cheque
no.151934 dated 31/10/2024 for ₹80 lakhs issued by the complainant was
dishonoured on 11/12/2024 for "Funds Insufficient." These facts prove that the
complainant's statements are false and misleading.
It is further submitted that apart from the above, the complainant himself
issued cheque no. 770417 dated 28/02/2025 for ₹3,54,95,000/- in the name of
Shreya Rally (daughter of Gautam Rai) towards land consideration, which is still
unpaid.
It is further submitted that as per the detailed reply dated 29/03/2025
submitted by Gautam Rai Rally, huge amounts were advanced by him to the
complainant and his family firms, viz, ₹2,44,38,230/- between 11/05/2023 and
11/10/2023, and ₹3,92,00,000/- between 10/09/2024 and 15/10/2024. These
amounts have remained unpaid and have been concealed by the complainant.
It is further submitted that although notice dated 01/04/2025 was issued by
Police Station Murar to the complainant, no clarification was sought on these
crucial issues, including dishonour of cheque no.151934 and repayment of
amounts advanced by the applicant; instead, in his subsequent statement dated
08/04/2025, the complainant falsely incorporated the dishonoured cheque of ₹80
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
6 MCRC-40877-2025
lakhs, despite it having been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.
It is further submitted that in reality, against cheque no.151933 of ₹70
lakhs, only ₹50 lakhs were paid in cash to Gautam Rai Rally and the cheque was
retrieved back, while the complainant promised to pay the balance of ₹10 lakhs
later. The complainant has concealed this fact. Similarly, the loans of several
crores advanced by the applicant between 2023 and 2024, and the dishonour of
cheque no.151934 for ₹80 lakhs, have also been suppressed.
It is further submitted that in the original complaint dated 01/01/2025, no
allegations were made against applicant Manvendra Singh Parihar, nor was any
action sought against him. Yet, his name was added during investigation, which
shows a biased and selective approach adopted by the Investigating Officer.
It is further submitted that large sums amounting to crores of rupees are still
due from the complainant to Gautam Rai Rally and his family. An 80-lakh cheque
bounce case is already pending. The complainant has, therefore, mischievously
attempted to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute, to blackmail the
applicants and to avoid repayment of his liabilities.
It is further submitted that the ingredients of Section 316(5) IPC are not
made out, as neither party is a public servant, banker, factor, broker, attorney, or
agent. The dispute is purely civil. Judicial precedents including Javed Ali v. State
of M.P. (Criminal Revision No.198/2025), Radheshyam v. State of Rajasthan
(Criminal Appeal No.3020/2024), Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal
(2022), Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. (2024), and Rikhab Birani v. State of U.P.
(2025) have consistently held that civil disputes cannot be given criminal colour,
nor can police act as recovery agents. It is further submitted that the alleged ₹50
lakhs, as per the complainant's own version, are stated to have been given in cash,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
7 MCRC-40877-2025
which is unsupported and an afterthought.
It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. On
the contrary, the complainant himself has a background of financial and criminal
cases, including FIR No.630/2020 at Police Station Thatipur.
It is further submitted that the applicants are permanent resident of District
Gwalior. They are not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence. The applicants
undertake to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court while
granting anticipatory bail.
In alternate, without prejudice to the applicants' rights and contentions, and
in order to demonstrate bona fides , learned counsel for the applicants offered that
the applicants are willing to deposit the disputed sum of ₹50 lakhs in the form of
Fixed Deposit before this Court, till the final adjudication of the matter and an
affidavit to this effect has already been filed in the connected bail matter of
Gautam Rai Rally.
On the basis of the above arguments, it was prayed that the applicants be
granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
STATE & COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSIONS
Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor for the State and counsel for the
complainant opposed the application, submitting that investigation is still pending;
custodial interrogation of the applicant is essential in order to ascertain the actual
flow of funds, the source of commission of the offence, recovery and seizure of
incriminating material, and unearthing the wider conspiracy.
It is further submitted that the offence affects the society at large, and the
complainant herein is only one among many victims against whom similar
offences have been committed at the behest of the accused persons for pecuniary
and other unlawful gains.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
8 MCRC-40877-2025
It is further submitted he applicants are habitual offenders with a criminal
background and they have a history of blackmail, filing false complaints for
extortion, and indulging in financial crimes. Recent incidents include GST evasion
and theft of approx. ₹340 crores, and Income concealment fraud of approx. ₹12
crores.
It is further submitted that the applicant No.1's husband and in-laws are also
facing proceedings in connection with Income Tax fraud, wherein forged
documents with fake police seals were used to obtain undue benefit. The inquiry is
ongoing. These acts directly strike at the Government exchequer and shake public
confidence. Further, their modus operandi includes availing loans from banks,
intentionally declaring the property as NPA, extracting money from innocent
persons on pretext of release, and later purchasing the same account in auction
through proxies.
It is significant to note that the applicant No.1's father-in-law, Shri Gulshan
Rai Rally, proprietor of M/s Bharat School & Supplier, had mortgaged property
with Canara Bank. The disputed amount was raised to release the said property.
Thus, the applicants, being a direct beneficiary and aware of these malafide
activities, are squarely involved in cheating not only individuals but also financial
institutions.
It is further submitted that the accused family has a well-documented history
of inducing persons to enter into financial transactions and later cheating them.
Complaints exist not only in Madhya Pradesh but also in Uttar Pradesh (Mathura-
Vrindavan). In one such matter, an expunge report was filed on account of
admissions made by co-accused Gautam Rai Rally, video footage of which is
annexed on a pen drive.
It is further submitted that the cheque of ₹80 lakhs, dishonoured for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
9 MCRC-40877-2025
insufficiency of funds, has been wrongly used by co-accused Gautam Rai Rally to
lodge a private complaint under Section 138 NI Act. In reality, the cheque and
cash payment of ₹50 lakhs were given only for the purpose of releasing the
mortgaged Canara Bank property of the applicant's family. Hence, the pending NI
Act complaint is based on incorrect facts and forms part of the broader fraudulent
design.
While placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda (SLP (Crl.) No. 13956/2023,
decided on 09.04.2025), it is submitted that anticipatory bail in cases of serious
financial fraud cannot be granted as a matter of course.
Further While placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
matter of Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (CRA No.
3219/2025, decided on 28.07.2025), it was further clarified that bail applications
must be decided strictly on merits and not on the basis of undertakings to make
good pecuniary losses. Thus, the undertaking/affidavit of accused to deposit ₹50
lakhs has no bearing on the present application and cannot be a ground for grant of
bail.
It is further submitted that the anticipatory bail application preferred by co-
accused Shri Gulshan Rai Rally has already been dismissed on merits by this
Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 34803 of 2025,
after due consideration of all arguments similar to those which are being raised
herein.
In view of the above submissions, gravity of allegations, continuing
investigation, and settled legal principles, it is prayed that the present applications
for anticipatory bail filed by applicants are wholly devoid of merit and deserve to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
10 MCRC-40877-2025
be dismissed in limine.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perusing the case diary, documentary material placed on record,
and the precedents cited, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicants
are serious in nature, involving offences such as cheating, criminal breach of trust,
financial fraud, and criminal conspiracy, which have far-reaching consequences
and affect not only the complainant but also the public at large.
The account statement of the complainant for the period 25th of October,
2024 to 30th of October, 2024 clearly reflects that on 25.10.2024, 28.10.2024 and
30.10.2024, a sums of Rs.300,000/-, 100,000/- and 100,000/- were paid and
entered in ledger book pertaining to Gautam Rai Rally , which were duly
supported by duly signed vouchers of the same date, which were of all the
applicants and co-accused Gulshan Rai Rally on account of M/s Bharat School and
Supplier loan account Canara Bank (as placed alongwith the applications). The
investigation into the matter is ongoing, thus, custodial interrogation of the
applicants appears to be necessary to ascertain the actual flow of funds, the source
of commission of the alleged offences, recovery of documents, and other
evidences. The prima facie material suggests a coordinated modus operandi
involving multiple family members and substantial financial transactions across
various locations. The applicants appear to have been active participants in the
alleged transactions, and the case cannot be dismissed as purely civil in nature.
The prior conduct of the applicants, coupled with allegations of their involvement
in other financial irregularities, strengthens the requirement for strict judicial
scrutiny and militates against granting anticipatory bail.
The Apex Court in the matters of Serious Fraud Investigation Office v.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21105
11 MCRC-40877-2025
Aditya Sarda (SLP (Crl.) No. 13956/2023, decided on 09.04.2025) and Gajanan
Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (CRA No. 3219/2025, decided on
28.07.2025) has held that anticipatory bail in cases involving serious economic
offences should not be granted as a matter of routine. Undertakings to deposit
pecuniary amounts cannot be a substitute for custodial interrogation or for proper
investigation into serious offences. In the instant case, even the undertaking
offered by the accused to deposit certain amounts does not mitigate the gravity of
the offences alleged against them.
Furthermore, the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Shri Gulshan
Rai Rally has already been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated
13.08.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 34803 of 2025, after considering some of the argument
identical to those raised in the present applications.
Having regard to the serious nature of the allegations, the ongoing
investigation, the need for custodial interrogation, and the settled legal position,
the Court is satisfied that no exceptional circumstances exist warranting the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS to grant anticipatory
bail. Accordingly, the applications filed under Section 482 BNSS by applicants
seeking grant of anticipatory bail are hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
