[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Batham vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6210
1 MCRC-7559-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7559 of 2026
ANIL BATHAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Ms Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present second application under Section 482 of BNSS has been
filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. His earlier anticipatory
bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.10.2025
passed in M.Cr.C. No. 44794 of 2025 by this Court.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.250/2025 registered at Police Station Gwalior, District Gwalior (M.P.)
for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 3(5) further
added Section 109 (1) of BNS.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the present
applicant is identical and akin to that of co-accused Rajesh Yadav who has
been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.4749 of 2026. On the ground of parity, it is argued that the
applicant is entitled to the same relief.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6210
2 MCRC-7559-2026
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail; however, she
fairly does not dispute the fact that the case of the present applicant stands on
similar footing to that of co-accused Rajesh Yadav, who has already been
granted bail by this Court. It is further submitted that the applicant has
criminal antecedents of three criminal cases.
Heard counsel for parties and perused the case diary.
The case of the applicant appears to be similar to that of co-accused
Rajesh Yadav who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
04.02.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4749 of 2026. In the absence of any
distinguishing feature pointed out by the prosecution and in view of the
principle of parity, this Court sees no reason to take a different view from
that taken in the case of the aforesaid co-accused.
Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record and to
maintain parity, this Court is inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail
to the present applicant. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the
case, this application is allowed.
It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be
enlarged 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 the Arresting Officer for his appearance before it during
the course of investigation or before the trial Court concerned during trial, as
the case may be.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicant :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6210
3 MCRC-7559-2026
(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 himself in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police
Officer, as the case may be;
iv) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial;
v) The applicant shall not commit any other offence during the period
of bail;
vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court/Police Station concerned
for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
