[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akansha 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-4711-2026
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. 4711 of 2026
AKANSHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Yadav & Shri Rishi A. Choukse- Advocate for the
applicants.
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 applicants' 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 they are apprehending their 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 applicants is of unlawfully entering into
the house of the complainant and also commission of robbery along with the
other accused.
4] Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the dispute in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3222
2 MCRC-4711-2026
question 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 applicant no.1 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 applicants were also issued notice under Section 41-A of
the CrPC, and have not misused the liberty extended to them 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 applicants were 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 applicants 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 applicants is allowed. It is directed
that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail, upon their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3222
3 MCRC-4711-2026
executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five
thousand only) each and furnishing separate solvent surety each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer)/
concerned trial court. The applicants shall make themselves available for
interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. They 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 applicants are found to be involved in
violation of any of the terms of this order, an application for cancellation of
their 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
