Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arpit Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22097
1 MCRC-38255-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38255 of 2025
ARPIT SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. R K Sharma - Senior Counsel with Shri Brijendra Singh Gour -
Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Saket Udeniya - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Mr. Abhay Jain - Advocate for the respondent [COMP].
ORDER
This is the first application under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant. Applicant apprehends his arrest in
connection with Crime No.504/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali,
District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5)
and 61(2) of BNS and Section 13(1)(a) of PC Act.
2. As per prosecution case, in compliance of order of Collector dated
25.7.2025 the SDM, Shivpuri had written a letter on the same day to
Tehsildar and thereafter Tehsildar had written an application making request
to register the FIR and same has been produced at Police Station by one Ravi
Prakash Lodhi who was the Patwari stating therein that complaint about the
construction of roads in various wards (1, 7, 17, 31, 36, and 39). An
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22097
2 MCRC-38255-2025
inspection team, constituted by the Collector, found discrepancies between
the materials listed in the measurement book (GSB, WMM, and Zeera) and
the materials physically present at the construction site. A search report,
submitted by Sachin Chauhan, Rajesh Dhakad, and Ranjit Khapre, revealed
that the actual quantity of materials was less than what was recorded. This
deficit in materials was valued at ₹16,13,906. On the basis of which,
aforesaid FIR has been registered against the present applicant and other co-
accused persons.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, a government
contractor, completed the construction work approximately five months
before the date of the inspection report. At that time, no complaint regarding
the work had been made by any councilor or local resident. He further
submits that according to Section 103 of the Municipal Council Rules, 2018,
the Municipal Council Engineer is responsible for technical defalcation. It is
the duty of the Sub-Engineer to prepare the measurements, which are then
verified by the Assistant Engineer. Therefore, the applicant argues that he has
been falsely and illegally implicated in this case. It is further argued that
prosecution has also registered the crime under Section 13(1) (a) of P.C. Act,
but on the contrary the said provision attracts only against public servants,
therefore, no offence is made out against the present applicant. It is further
argued that the work, which was allotted to him in February 2025, was
completed within the stipulated period. Since then, no complaints were
made. It was only after some damage occurred due to heavy rain that certain
councilors and other political members attempted to implicate the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22097
3 MCRC-38255-2025
applicant. It is further submitted that, according to the Municipality Rules,
the SDM has no jurisdiction to lodge an FIR against the present applicant
regarding the work he conducted. In the present context, the custodial
interrogation is not required and the trial would take sufficient
time. Applicant is permanent resident of District Shivpuri, therefore, there is
no apprehension of his absconsion. Hence, he prays that applicant be
enlarged on anticipatory bail.
4. Counsel for the applicant has raised a preliminary objection that
there is no victim in the present case, as no overt act has been made out that
would directly affect them. Therefore, the complainant has no locus standi in
this case.
5. At this stage, the complainants are the primary complainants,
witnesses, and representatives of the Municipal Council, which is the direct
victim of the alleged financial irregularities. In such circumstances, he has
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Puran Vs. Rambilas reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338 as well as in the case of R.
Rathiram Vs. State reported in (2000) 2 SCC 391, wherein, the Court has
held as under:-
"..... If so, any member of the public, whether he belongs to any
particular profession or otherwise, who has a concern in the matter
can move the High Court to remind it of the need to invoke the
said power suo moto. There is no barrier either in Section 439 of
the Code or in any other law which in hibits a person from moving
the High Court to have such powers exercised suo moto...."
6. In view of the case laws, counsel for the complainant is permitted
to assist the Government counsel during hearing of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22097
4 MCRC-38255-2025
7. On the other hand, counsel for the State as well as learned counsels
for the complainant, vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for
its rejection by submitting that investigation is pending that many truths are
yet to come to fore. It is further submitted that the arguments raised by the
counsel for the applicant that the SDM has no jurisdiction to lodge an FIR
regarding the work done by the applicant is of no help to the present
applicant as in compliance of order of Collector dated 25.7.2025, the SDM,
Shivpuri had also written a letter on the same day to Tehsildar and thereafter
Tehsildar had written an application making request to register the FIR and
same has been produced at Police Station by one Ravi Prakash Lodhi who
was the Patwari stating therein that complaint about the construction of roads
in various wards (1, 7, 17, 31, 36, and 39). An inspection team, constituted
by the Collector, found discrepancies between the materials listed in the
measurement book (GSB, WMM, and Zeera).
8. It is further submitted that the SDM's inquiry report discloses
irregularities, including the disappearance of municipal files worth
approximately Rs. 4.5 crores . The report states that municipal officers have
held the present applicant responsible for this, which clearly indicates his
active involvement in the alleged offence. In such circumstances, he should
not be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail at this stage.
9. It is an admitted position that the applicant had earlier instituted
proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS on 01.08.2025, which was duly
registered as M.Cr.C. No.35444/2025. In the said proceedings, notices were
issued by the Division Bench of this Court. Notwithstanding this, present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22097
5 MCRC-38255-2025
anticipatory bail was filed subsequently, on 20.08.2025 without any
disclosure of the aforesaid pending matter. Subsequently, that petition was
withdrawn by the present applicant on 03.09.2025.
10. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case
diary.
11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well
as looking to the fact that the applicant bears criminal record of seven cases and
in view of the role of applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory
bail to the applicant at this stage.
12. Accordingly, this bail application sans merits and is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)
