Smt. Priya Rally vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2026

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7435

1 MCRC-9534-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9532 of 2026
MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Saxena- Advocate and Shri Sajneev Kushwaha - Advocate

and for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate and Shri Kamal Mangal -
Advocate for respondent [COMP].
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9520 of 2026
GAUTAM RAI RALLY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:

Shri Vineet Saxena- Advocate and Shri Sajneev Kushwaha -
Advocate and for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate and Shri Kamal Mangal -
Advocate for respondent [COMP].

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9523 of 2026

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 2/27/2026
1:12:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7435

2 MCRC-9534-2026
GULSHAN RAI RALLY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Saxena- Advocate and Shri Sajneev Kushwaha -
Advocate and for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate and Shri Kamal Mangal -
Advocate for respondent [COMP].

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9534 of 2026
SMT. PRIYA RALLY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Saxena- Advocate and Shri Sajneev Kushwaha -
Advocate and for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate and Shri Kamal Mangal -
Advocate for respondent [COMP].

ORDER

This is second repeat applications filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. The earlier anticipatory bail applications filed by applicants-Smt. Priya Rally and Manvendra Singh Parihar and applicant- Gautam Rai Rally were dismissed on merits vide orders dated 10.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 40877 of 2025, 40881 of 2025 and 40875 of 2025.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7435

3 MCRC-9534-2026 The earlier anticipatory bail application filed by applicant - Gulshan Kumar Rally was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.34803 of 2025.

2. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with. Crime No.288 of 2025 registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 296, 308(7), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 351(3) and 61(2) of BNS.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, Dheeraj Prakash Agrawal, had lodged a written complaint alleging that on 21.10.2024, Gautam Rai Rally, Priya Rai Rally, and Gulshan Rai demanded a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from him for releasing a mortgaged property (residential property of "Ajanam Shanti Prakashan") from the loan account of their firm M/s Bharat School and Supplier. They assured him that after releasing the said property from the bank, they would sell it for Rs. 3 crores and hand it over to him. Relying upon their assurance, the complainant gave over Rs.30 lakhs to Gautam Rai Rally, obtaining his signatures on a voucher. Subsequently, on 28.10.2024, he paid another Rs. 10 lakhs, and on 30.10.2024, an additional Rs.10 lakhs in cash through Manvendra, an employee of Gautam Rai Rally. Manvendra gave a signed receipt, which also mentioned the loan account of M/s Bharat School and Supplier. However, when the complainant noticed a public auction notice in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar on 05.12.2024 regarding the mortgaged property of M/s Bharat School and Supplier with the bank, he came to know that the property

claimed by the accused persons was in fact not mortgaged with Canara

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7435

4 MCRC-9534-2026 Bank, rather some other property was under mortgage. He further discovered that the accused persons had not deposited the sum of Rs.50 lakhs with the bank at all. When the complainant tried to contact the accused persons in this regard, they did not respond. Upon contacting Gautam Rai, he abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened to falsely implicate him and his family members in criminal cases. Thus, it is alleged that the accused persons, in collusion with their employee Manvendra had committed fraud and had misappropriated the complainant's money.The written complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, who in turn directed it to the Station House Officer, Police Station Murar, whereupon an inquiry was initiated. During investigation, the accused persons were summoned and their statements were recorded. They claimed that in the year 2022-23, they had entered into a property transaction with the complainant regarding two large properties situated at Sirol, for a total consideration of Rs.20 crores 70 lakhs, against which the complainant and his family members had allegedly paid Rs.1 crore 40 lakhs, For this purpose, the complainant had issued two cheques of Central Bank of India, Thatipur Branch-Cheque No. 151933 dated 31.10.2024 for Rs.60 lakhs, and Cheque No. 151934 dated 31.10.2024 for Rs.80 lakhs. Later, the complainant allegedly gave them Rs.130 lakhs (with voucher signed) and Rs.10 lakhs-10 lakhs through Manvendra, while taking back Cheque No.151933. However, when the second cheque No.151934 for 80 lakhs was presented in the bank, it got dishonoured, for which a case is stated to be pending before the court. Nevertheless, when the accused persons were asked to provide factual evidence supporting their

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7435

5 MCRC-9534-2026 version of monetary transactions, they failed to furnish any documentary proof. On the other hand, the complainant produced detailed evidence and supporting documents regarding his transactions. Accordingly, on the basis of the investigation report, alleged crime was registered against the applicants and other comaccused persons under Sections 296, 308(7), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 351(3), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that subsequent to the rejection of the earlier anticipatory bail applications, there has been a material and significant change in circumstances warranting fresh consideration by this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that in one SC NIA case No.1870/2015 filed by Gautam Rai Rally against the complainant for dishonor of cheque, on 19.09.2025, the complainant represented before the learned trial court through his Advocate Mr. Tarun Vyas, consented for mediation on account of possibility of an amicable settlement between them. In view thereof, the matter was referrred to mediation with a direction to place the mediation report on record. Pursuant to the said order, mediation proceedings were conducted which culminated in a successful settlement between the parties. In consequence thereof, the complaint petition instituted by applicant Gautam Rai Rally under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, came to be compounded in terms of Section 147 of the said Act and was thus, withdrawn. It is further submitted that in furtherance of the settlement, the complainant, Shri Dheeraj Agarwal, through his firms M/s C.P. Goods and M/s Himmatram Ghasiram, transferred

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7435

6 MCRC-9534-2026 substantial amounts into the bank accounts of the applicant and his family members, i.e.Rs. 32,50,000/- on 08.10.2025; Rs. 18,50,000/- on 29.10.2025; and Rs. 20,00,000/- on 31.01.2026. The total amount so transferred aggregates to Rs. 71,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-One Lakhs Only). It is thus argued that in view of the amicable settlement and the aforesaid monetary transactions having been duly effected, the surviving dispute, if any, remains purely of civil in nature, thus, does not warrant custodial interrogation of the applicants. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants undertake to fully cooperate with the investigation as and when required. It is contended that there is no likelihood of the applicants absconding, tampering with prosecution evidence, or influencing any witness. They further undertake to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the applications and submits that no such change in circumstance has occurred which would justify grant of anticipatory bail. It is contended that a reward of Rs. 5,000/- has been declared against the applicants and arrest warrants have been issued. It is further submitted that proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. are going to be initiated against the applicants. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Salochna Prdi vs. State

of Madhya Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18200 of 2025 vide order dated 06.01.2026 , wherein anticipatory bail granted to the respondent therein was cancelled in view of initiation of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7435

7 MCRC-9534-2026 proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. It is thus urged that in view of the said legal position and the conduct of the applicants, the present applications deserve to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, also opposed the applications and submitted that earlier anticipatory bail applications filed by the applicants were rejected on merits vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 40877/2025 and 40875/2025. It is submitted that in the earlier round, the applicants had taken a defence that the complainant had issued cheque No. 770417 dated 28.02.2025 for Rs. 3,54,95,000/- in the name of Shreya Rally towards land consideration, which remains unpaid. Reference was also made to a detailed reply dated 29.03.2025 submitted by Gautam Rai Rally alleging that substantial amounts were advanced by him to the complainant and his family firms, for Rs. 2,44,38,230/- between 11.05.2023 and 11.10.2023 and Rs. 3,92,00,000/- between 10.09.2024 and 15.10.2024, which allegedly remain unpaid. It is contended that the question as to who is the lender and who is the debtor is a matter to be decided by the competent court after adducing evidence. It is further submitted that both parties are property dealers and that the transaction of Rs. 70 lakhs was in relation to property dealings. The complainant asserts that the applicants are habitual offenders having criminal antecedents and are involved in multiple complaints not only in Madhya Pradesh but also in Uttar Pradesh. Allegations of financial irregularities, GST evasion and income concealment have also been levelled against them. It is argued that this Court, while rejecting the earlier anticipatory bail

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7435

8 MCRC-9534-2026 applications, had considered the serious nature of allegations, the ongoing investigation and the necessity for custodial interrogation, and had found no exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the complainant was at liberty to withdraw his complaint at any stage prior to taking cognizance on the basis of settlement and that the withdrawal of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not wipe out the allegations in the present case. According to the complainant, the monetary transfers were made only to avoid being branded as a defaulter in a civil dispute and do not amount to exoneration of the applicants. It is further submitted that in similar two cases, the warrant of arrest has been issued against the applicant- Gautam Rai Rally. It is contended that there is no substantial change in circumstance and that the present applications are liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard counsel for parties and perused the case diary.

8. It is well settled that successive anticipatory bail applications are maintainable if there is a material change in circumstances. In the earlier round, the applications were rejected primarily considering the stage of investigation, seriousness of allegations and absence of exceptional circumstances. The present applications are founded on subsequent events, particularly the compromise initiated between the parties and admitted monetary transfers between them after rejection of the earlier applications.

9. The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the dispute emanates from a series of property and financial transactions between parties engaged in business dealings. The subsequent conduct of parties in seeking

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7435

9 MCRC-9534-2026 mediation, entering into compromise, getting Negotiable Instruments Act case quashed resulting in acquittal of complainant and effecting financial transfers reduces the necessity of custodial interrogation, particularly when the transactions are documentary in nature.

10. So far as reliance placed by the learned Public Prosecutor upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Salochna Prdi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) is concerned, the said decision was rendered in the peculiar facts of that case where proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had already been initiated and the accused had been declared absconding, and anticipatory bail granted earlier was found to be unsustainable in view of deliberate evasion of process of law. In the present case, though it is submitted that proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are contemplated, there is no material on record to demonstrate that the applicants have been declared proclaimed offenders or that such proceedings have culminated in attachment after due compliance of statutory requirements. Mere proposal or initiation of such proceedings, without finality and without adjudication of abscondence, cannot ipso facto disentitle the applicants from seeking relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS, particularly when subsequent developments indicate cooperation through legal process including mediation.

11. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the subsequent developments, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the rival parties, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants have made out a case for grant

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7435

10 MCRC-9534-2026 of anticipatory bail.

12. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants-Manvendra Singh Parihar, Gautam Rai Rally, Gulshan Rai Rally and Smt. Priya Rally shall be enlarged on bail on each of them 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 their appearance before it during the course of investigation or before the trial Court concerned during trial, as the case may be.

13. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants :-

(i) The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;

ii) The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

iii) The applicants will not indulge themselves 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;