[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Kumar Das vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11986
1 MCRC-14562-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14562 of 2026
SANDEEP KUMAR DAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for the State.
ORDER
This is first application filed under Section 482 of BNSS by the
applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.48/2022 registered at Police Station P.S. G.R.P., District Vidisha for
offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
3. As per the prosecution case, complainant Nitesh Kumar Yadav was
and lodged a report stating that on 09.05.2022, he was traveling from
Prayagraj to Sant Hirdaramnagar. While traveling, he fell asleep. When he
woke up, he found his mobile phone stolen. On the basis of the aforesaid,
FIR was registered vide Crime No.210/2022 at P.S. G.R.P. Bhopal. During
investigation, the aforesaid stolen phone was found from the possession of
one Nisha Banra residing in Jharkhand. Upon further inquiry, it was found
that the Nisha Banra stated that the aforesaid phone was purchased by her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11986
2 MCRC-14562-2026
husband from one mobile phone shopkeeper/vendor- Mohammand Arman.
And when Mohammad Arman was inquired, he revealed that the said phone
was purchased by him from the present applicant, who is a whole-seller.
Upon further inquiry, it was found that the present applicant by way of
forged documents/bill had prepared fake bill of the aforesaid phone and sold
it into the market. Accordingly, offence has been registered against him.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
argued that the present applicant is a whole-seller of the android mobile
phones and sale of single phone to anyone is totally baseless because the
present applicant entertains whole selling only. It is further argued that the
aforesaid phone has not been sold by him, neither he created the aforesaid
forged bill nor he signed the aforesaid bill. There is no signature of him.
Even the aforesaid mobile phone was not purchased from his shop. The
applicant is a patient of high diabetic and is undergoing treatment. He is the
sole bread earner for his family. He is a reputed person. He is ready and
willing to abide by the all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by
this Court and he is also ready to make himself available before the
prosecution as and when required. No recovery has to be made from him,
therefore, custodial interrogation is not necessary.. Hence, it is prayed that
the applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and have prayed for its rejection.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11986
3 MCRC-14562-2026
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court finds that during the establishing the chain of the investigation, the
prosecution inquired about the aforesaid phone, then it was found that not
only the present applicant sold the stolen phone but also, prepared forged bill
in the name of Spectrum Wireless and Technology and the said factum was
proved by the prosecution. In such circumstances, it becomes necessary that
the involvement of the present applicant is some other illegal sale be
investigated. Even, in the present case also, the chain of events are
connecting with the present applicant in respect of alleged offence.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial
interrogation is necessary.
8. Hence, looking to the contents of case diary, amount of alleged theft
and the role attributable to the present applicant, this court is not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
9. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)
