[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9814
1 MCRC-2916-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2916 of 2026
VIRENDRA DIXIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate along with Shri Mayank Sharma
and Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri C. K. Mishra - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 483
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail
relating to FIR/Crime No.473/2025 registered at Police Station Lakhanwada,
District Seoni (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2),
126(2), 140(3) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. The applicant is in jail since
18.11.2025. Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 15.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.55605/2025.
2. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant has been implicated in the present case only on the ground that the
co-accused, Pooja Pandey, is his relative. As per the prosecution case itself,
at intervening night of 09.10.2025, the police officers along with the other
accused persons stopped Creta Car bearing registration No.MH-13-EK-3430
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9814
2 MCRC-2916-2026
and took out Rs.1,45,00,000/- which was of Hawala transaction amounting to
Rs.2,96,50,000/- and the amount has been recovered from the possession of
the police officer the then SDOP namely Pooja Pandey. It is alleged that this
applicant was in constant touch with the co-accused. On that basis, the
applicant has been made an accused.
3. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that as per the
prosecution, the first call was made at 11:14 pm and 11:17 pm. After that, at
02:00 am, 02:30 am, 03:19 am, 04:03 am, chatting were being made between
them. It is further submitted that, earlier in the morning, certain incriminating
facts brought on the record, particularly the contents of a WhatsApp chat of
such nature which comes under the purview of abetment of the offence.
4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has also submitted that
nothing has been recovered from the mobile phone of the present applicant.
As per the investigating officer himself, on 09.10.2025 at 00:30-01:00 am,
the offence was committed. The applicant's wife and Pooja Pandey are the
real sisters. At the relevant time, the ailing son and mother-in-law of Pooja
Pandey were in the house of the present applicant, it was natural that she
would call to enquire about the health condition of her child and mother-in-
law as both were ill. The co-accused Pooja Pandey was arrested on
14.10.2025 and her mobile phone was seized. The applicant was called by
the police twice. First, on 25.10.2025 and after questioning, he was not
arrested at that time. On the second notice, he was called and he has
cooperated in the investigation. The other accused persons are government
employees whereas the present applicant is a private person. Only on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9814
3 MCRC-2916-2026
basis of chats, the present applicant could not be held liable for the offences
of extortion or for committing the loot or dacoity.
5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant, relying upon the judgment
of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India
passed in SLP (Crl.) No.5703 of 2021 dated 13.12.2021 , has submitted that
Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the printout of WhatsApp massages
downloaded from the mobile phone and device seized from the office
premises of the applicant could not be treated sufficient material to establish
the live link between the persons from whose mobile, the link was taken
from the other accused persons.
6. On that basis, learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted
that only on the basis of call record and WhatsApp chats, no inference can be
drawn as the applicant and Pooja Pandey were near relatives and the son of
Pooja Pandey was residing at that time in the house of the present applicant
relating to the treatment.
7. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has further submitted that
the prosecution case itself is that co-accused Pooja Pandey has not informed
to higher officers about the search and seizure. No entry was made, on that
basis, he has been made an accused. The charge sheet has been submitted
against 13 police officials but no sanction to the prosecution has been taken
against Pankaj Mishra and Pooja Pandey. Thus, the whole charge sheet is
vitiated. On that basis, the applicant be also released on bail.
8. Learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the bail
application and has submitted that co-accused Pooja Pandey was sister-in-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9814
4 MCRC-2916-2026
law of the present applicant and usually she was talking with him 2-3 times
in a day but on 08.10.2025 at 23:14 hours, when she got the information
from Pankaj Mishra at 23:17 hours and she had given the information to this
applicant. On 09.10.2025 at 02.02 am, the applicant has sent the message to
Pooja Pandey that "wrong information to nhi hai" and after that at 03:19 am
asked that "kya hua" and message was made at 04:01 am that "Manna nhi wo
log man jayenge" and at 04:30 pm message was sent that " aur jaldi karo
thoda jaldbaji dikhoge to kaam ho jayega". On that basis, the applicant was
pursuing Pooja Pandey for committing the offence. After the incident also
from 08.10.2025 at 10:00 pm to 09.10.2025 till 10:00 pm, 53 calls were
made. It is further submitted that there is clear call record and WhatsApp
chatts. From the WhatsApp chats, it is clear that the applicant has informed
the co-accused Pooja Pandey and thereafter induced her to exert pressure so
that the complainant party may not raise any protest. On that basis, it is
submitted that no case of bail is made out.
9. Heard the parties and perused the case diary.
10. The prosecution case in nutshell is that Sohanlal Parmar was
working as a Hawala merchant. Mukhtar and Irfan from his friend/driver
collected the money of Rs.2,97,50,000/- from Satna and Katni, were
returning to Jalna in Creta Car bearing registration No.MH-13-EK-3430
which was stopped by police authorities in District-Seoni and the checking
was made. After that, from the vehicle, Rs.2,97,50,000/- were found. In a
proceeding, Rs.1,45,00,000/- were held by the police team and kept in the
almirah of SDOP office i.e. the office of the co-accused Pooja Pandey. When
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9814
5 MCRC-2916-2026
the complaint was made by Sohanlal Parmar to the higher police officers
then the investigation was made. From the SDOP office, the said amount was
recovered and after enquiry, the Crime No.473/2025 was registered against
the team of Police Officers. On the basis of the call record, it was found that
the present applicant was in the constant touch of Pooja Pandey. On that
basis, the present applicant has been arrested on the charge of abetment and
conspiracy. Nowhere, it is stated that this applicant has visited the spot.
Furthermore, the money has been recovered from the office of Pooja Pandey
and all the accused persons have been arrested. The evidence against the
present applicant is only on the basis of call record and WhatsApp chats.
11. Looking to the factual aspects of the case coupled with the facts
that the charge sheet has been submitted and trial will take time to be
concluded, this Court deems it appropriate to release the applicants on bail.
Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application
is allowed.
12. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his
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 the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all
such dates as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during pendency of
trial.
13. It is directed that the applicant shall neither try to contact the
prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly nor try to give any threat to them.
14. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9814
6 MCRC-2916-2026
provisions of Section 480(3) of BNSS.
15. Without prior permission of the Court, the applicant shall not leave
India.
16. Accordingly, Misc. Criminal Case stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
HK
