Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amitabh Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22090
1 MCRC-41057-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41057 of 2025
AMITABH RAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Parashar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Dinesh Savita - Public Prosecutor for the 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.419/2025
registered at Police Station Madhoganj, District Gwalior for the offence
punishable under Section 419, 420 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Madhya
Pradesh Recognized Examination Act.
As per prosecution story, during the investigation in the matter,
Atendrasinh Meena was arrested. Upon questioning, he stated that he was
preparing for the Army and Police recruitment examinations. While at Galla
Mandi, Sabalgarh, he met Amitab Rawat (the applicant), resident of Village
Trendila, Police Station Jaora, who told him that he could ensure his success
in the examination. A monetary arrangement of ₹8 lakh was agreed upon,
and Atendrasinh Meena paid ₹2 lakh to Amitab (applicant).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22090
2 MCRC-41057-2025
Amitab (applicant) then took him to his village, where he placed
Atendrasinh's fingerprints, along with those of another boy who was to take
the written examination in his place, on the machine used for issuing
Aadhaar cards. Atendrasinh stated that he did not know the person operating
the Aadhaar card machine or the boy who sat in his place; he only knew
Amitab (applicant). Amitab (applicant) also called two other persons to assist
in placing the fingerprints of Atendrasinh and the boy into the machine. The
examination was actually taken by another person on his behalf.
After the examination on 08.09.2023, Amitab (applicant) instructed
Atendrasinh to correct his fingerprints in the Aadhaar card. On 09.09.2023,
Atendrasinh corrected his fingerprints and biometrics in the Aadhaar card.
Based on the statements of the co-accused, Atendrasinh Meena,
recorded under Section 23(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, the present
applicant has been made an accused in the case. The applicant's actions fall
within the purview of Sections 419, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937.
Accordingly, a case was registered, and the matter was taken up for
investigation.
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 that arrest
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22090
3 MCRC-41057-2025
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.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22090
4 MCRC-41057-2025
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
pwn*
