[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10946
1 MCRC-14467-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14467 of 2026
SANJAY GARG
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Parashar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - PP for the State.
Shri Mohit Bhadoriya - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
The applicant has filed this First application filed under Section
482 of BNSS/438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.419/2024 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road District Gwalior in
relation to the offence punishable under Sections 109, 191 (2), 191(3),
296 and 190 of BNS.
3. As per prosecution story, the complainant, Deepak Singh
Chauhan, lodged an FIR alleging that on 25.10.2024 at about 1:00
PM, the applicant along with co-accused persons allegedly arrived at the
complainant's farmhouse (Baraua Pichhor Farm House) armed with
guns, sticks and rods. It is alleged that they broke the boundary gate lock
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10946
2 MCRC-14467-2026
and entered the premises. The complainant and his family members
reached the spot, where accused Sanjay Garg (present applicant)
purportedly abused and instigated co-accused persons to open fire. It is
alleged that Vinayak Garg and others fired with a .315 bore rifle and
Sanjay Garg fired with a 12-bore gun with intent to kill.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that the applicant and his son, are long-time residents of
Gwalior and have been engaged in the automobile business for the past
thirty years, enjoying a good reputation in society. It is further submitted
that the dispute arose out of a property transaction, which once belonged
to the complainant. In fact, the complainant, Deepak Singh Chauhan
earlier was running a college under a society and for that had taken a
loan and had mortgaged the property with Allahabad Bank. Upon default
in repayment, the account was declared NPA and proceedings under the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 were initiated. The property was subsequently
was assigned vide deed dated 27.12.2018 by Allahabad Bank to one
Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.. Since the complainant
failed to hand over possession, proceedings under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act were initiated before the Collector, District Gwalior,
who directed delivery of possession. Thereafter, the applicant purchased
the property in an auction from Encore Group through a registered sale
deed dated 26.08.2022, thereby becoming the lawful owner and even the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10946
3 MCRC-14467-2026
matter traveled from this court to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the present
applicant ultimately declared the lawful owner of the land in question.
Counsel submits that prior to the present FIR, on 25.10.2024, when the
applicant and his father visited the property, the complainant attempted
to obstruct them and allegedly fired shots, threatening them. In this
regard, the applicant had lodged an FIR against the complainant. It is
contended that though it is alleged that the applicant's son had fired a
.315 bore firearm, in fact the present applicant and his son were
unarmed, and have no specific overt act. It is further argued that no
weapon has been recovered from the applicant and the allegations in the
FIR are general in nature. It is further submitted that even if it is assumed
for the sake of argument that the applicant had used a firearm, the
injuries alleged are inconsistent with the use of a .315 bore gun. Counsel
submits that video footage and photographs of the incident are available,
which prima facie show that the complainant was the aggressor. It is also
contended that the investigation has not been conducted fairly and
relevant material produced by the applicant has not been considered. It is
additionally submitted that co-accused persons namely- Somit Aacharya
(order dated 04.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.54146/2025), Sachin
Kumar (order dated 03.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.54154/2025) and
Vinayak Garg (order dated 20.03.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.13305/2026) have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court and the case of the present applicant stands on a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10946
4 MCRC-14467-2026
better footing. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Gwalior,
there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, and he
is ready to cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, it is
prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the
counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and prayed for its
dismissal submitting that the allegations contained therein clearly
disclosed the commission of serious and cognizable offences involving
the use of firearms, criminal intimidation, unlawful entry, and an attempt
to cause fatal injuries to the complainant and his family members. It was
contended that the FIR specifically attributes distinct roles to each of the
accused persons, including the present applicant, and that the prosecution
version is duly supported by medical evidence showing gunshot injuries
sustained by the complainant and other injured witnesses. The nature,
location, and gravity of the injuries, as recorded in the medical
examination reports, prima facie corroborate the allegation of firing with
deadly weapons.
6. It was further submitted that the applicant, along with other co-
accused, arrived at the complainant's farmhouse during late night hours
armed with deadly weapons, including a .315 bore rifle and a 12-bore
gun, forcibly broke open the boundary wall and gate, and entered the
premises with clear criminal intent. The acts attributed to them
demonstrate premeditation and concert, thereby attracting the relevant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10946
5 MCRC-14467-2026
provisions of the BNSS, 2023 relating to abetment, common intention,
and criminal intimidation.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature of allegations and the injuries sustained by the injured and on the
ground of parity also, without commenting on the merits of the case, this
Court is of the view that the applicant deserves the benefit of
anticipatory bail.
9. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting
Authority/Investigating Officer.
10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicant:-
(i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of
the bond executed by him;
(ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/ trial, as the
case may be;
(iii) The applicant will not indulge herself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10946
6 MCRC-14467-2026
(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence during the period
of bail;
(v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during
the trial;
(vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission
of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
11. Application stands allowed and disposed of.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court/Police Station
concerned for compliance.
13. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
