[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3222
1 MCRC-4734-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4734 of 2026
PANKAJ JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Yadav & Shri Rishi A. Choukse- Advocate for the
applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma-Govt. Adv. appearing on behalf of Advocate
General.
ORDER
1] They are heard. Perused the case-diary/challan papers.
2] This is the applicant's first application under Section 482 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as he/she is apprehending his/her
arrest in connection with Crime No.0152/2023, registered at Police Station
Aerodrome, District-Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections
452, 294, 392, 323, 506, 34 of IPC.
3] The allegation against the applicant is of unlawfully entering into
the house of the complainant and also commission of robbery along with the
other accused persons.
4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the dispute in question
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3222
2 MCRC-4734-2026
is purely matrimonial in nature, which has been given a colour of a criminal
case. It is submitted that the FIR itself has been lodged after a delay of
around two years, as the date of incident is stated to be 06.12.2021, whereas
the FIR has been lodged on 04.03.2023. It is further submitted that the co-
accused (the applicant no.1,Akansha w/o Gourav Doshi (in
M.Cr.C.No.4711/2026) has also filed an FIR at Crime no.31/2022 in Mahila
Thana, Jaipur, alleging harassment by the complainant and the other family
members. Thus, it is submitted that a false case been slapped against the
applicants only because of the matrimonial dispute. Counsel has further
submitted that the applicant was also issued notice under Section 41-A of the
CrPC, and has not misused the liberty extended to him but Section 392 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has also been added only at the time of filing the
charge sheet. Thus, it is submitted that the application deserves to be
allowed.
5] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has been
opposed the prayer.
6] Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the case diary,
and considering the dispute going on between the two parties, and the fact
that the applicant was also given notice under Section 41-A and the charge
sheet has been filed wherein, Section 398 has also been added, this Court is
inclined to allow the present bail application as the custodial interrogation of
the applicant under the facts and circumstances of the case is not necessary.
7] Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the application filed by the present applicant is allowed. It is directed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3222
3 MCRC-4734-2026
that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail, upon his/her
executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five
thousand only) and furnishing separate solvent surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer)/ concerned
trial court. The applicant shall make himself/herself available for
interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He shall further
abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8] It is also directed that if the applicant is found to be involved in
violation of any of the terms of this order, an application for cancellation of
his/her bail may be filed before the trial Court itself, who shall decide the
same in accordance with law.
09] Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
moni
