[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arpit Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:723
1 MCRC-107-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 107 of 2026
ARPIT SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Vikram Pippal - PP for the State.
ORDER
This is the second application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of
regular bail to the applicant. Applicant has been arrested in connection with
Crime No.504/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri
for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 61(2) of BNS and
Section 13(1)(a) of PC Act. First application was dismissed on merits vide
order dated 27.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.No.44603/2025.
2. As per prosecution case, in compliance of order of Collector dated
25.7.2025 the SDM, Shivpuri had written a letter on the same day to
Tehsildar and thereafter Tehsildar had written an application making request
to register the FIR and same has been produced at Police Station by one Ravi
Prakash Lodhi who was the Patwari stating therein that complaint about the
construction of roads in various wards (1, 7, 17, 31, 36, and 39). An
inspection team, constituted by the Collector, found discrepancies between
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:723
2 MCRC-107-2026
the materials listed in the measurement book (GSB, WMM, and Zeera) and
the materials physically present at the construction site. A search report,
submitted by Sachin Chauhan, Rajesh Dhakad, and Ranjit Khapre, revealed
that the actual quantity of materials was less than what was recorded. This
deficit in materials was valued at ₹16,13,906. On the basis of which,
aforesaid FIR has been registered against the present applicant and other co-
accused persons.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the work involved was
temporary in nature (laying kattal and Muram) and was completed in
February 2025, while the inspection occurred in July 2025. Due to excessive
monsoon rains in Shivpuri that year, the temporary construction work
sustained damage. It is further submitted that the FIR, even if taken at face
value, did not disclose the ingredients of fraudulent or dishonest intention
causing damage or harm, which is the very gist of the offence of cheating
alleged in the FIR. Therefore, the same ought to be quashed at the first
instance. The Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court
to the legal notice dated July 7, 2025, regarding harassment, obstruction of
work, and retaliatory, discriminatory actions by the Shivpuri Municipal
Council against the applicant's firm. The Counsel submits that the present
FIR has been lodged against the applicant as a result of these actions. It is
further submitted that the applicant's case is on a better footing than that of
the co-accused persons-Satish Nigam, Assistant Engineer, and Jitendra
Parihar, Sub Engineer--who have already been granted regular bail by the
Trial Court. Lastly, it is submitted that the father of the present applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:723
3 MCRC-107-2026
underwent a major heart surgery on May 30, 2025, at G.B. Pant Hospital,
New Delhi. As per medical advice, a mandatory post-surgery follow-up has
been scheduled for 01.10.2025, at the same hospital, and the applicant's
presence is required to look after him. It is further submitted that when an
arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the
duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1)
has been made. However, in the present case, the said compliance was not
made by the Magistrate. In support of his contention he has relied upon the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs.
State of Haryana and Anr reported in AIR 2025 SC 1388 . He has drawn
attention of this Court to order dated 25.07.2025, wherein, during the site
inspection, it was not possible to compare the depth calculated for the
previous work with the depth of the present situation, hence the depth
recorded in the measurement book has been considered as the depth of the
present situation. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Two
other co-accused have been granted bail by the trial court itself. In the
present context, the custodial interrogation is not required and the trial would
take sufficient time. Applicant is permanent resident of District Shivpuri,
therefore, there is no apprehension of his absconsion. Hence, he prays that
applicant be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State, as well as counsels for the
complainant, vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its
rejection.
5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:723
4 MCRC-107-2026
diary.
6. Considering the above submissions made by the counsel for the
parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature
of offence, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this
application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court.
7. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicant:-
i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him/her;
ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation /trial, as the case
may be;
iii) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself 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 acts to the Court or to
the Police Officer, as the case may be;
iv) The applicant will not commit any other offence or will not repeat
the offence in future.
vi) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial; and
vii) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:723
5 MCRC-107-2026
8. Application is allowed and disposed of.
9. E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
