[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vipin Patni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:921
1 MCRC-60235-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 60235 of 2025
VIPIN PATNI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shobhendra Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Prasum Kumar Maheshwri - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
The applicant has filed this first application under 482 of BNSS for
grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with
Crime No.688/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District
Ashoknagar for the offence punishable under Sections 299, 352, 353(2)
BNS, 2023.
As per prosecution story, the complainant Nitin submitted a written
application to the Station House Officer, City Kotwali Police Station, District
Ashoknagar, to the effect that on 18.12.2025, while he was using Facebook,
he noticed that from his Facebook account, Vipin Patni (present applicant),
through his ID profile, had repeatedly made objectionable and derogatory
comments against Pujya Sudha Sagar Ji Maharaj, addressing him with
abusive and insulting words such as "Pakhandi Baba" and other similar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:921
2 MCRC-60235-2025
terms. It was further alleged that Patni Vipin(present applicant), using mobile
number 91-9425131991, also posted the said objectionable content in a Jain
community-related WhatsApp group named "Panchayati Akhada," as a
result of which anger and resentment spread throughout the entire Jain
community. On the basis of such allegations, alleged crime was registered
against the accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and that no offence as alleged is made
out against him. It is contended that the applicant has neither intentionally
insulted nor deliberately outraged the religious feelings of any community. It
is further submitted that the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment
of seven years. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in 2014 (8) SCC
273, which directs that in offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven
years, police should avoid unnecessary arrests. It was argued that the
applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail, and arrest should be resorted to only
after recording reasons and when necessary for investigation.
Learned counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the
complainant opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
Having heard the parties and perusing the case diary, this Court finds
that the offences registered against the applicant are punishable
with imprisonment up to seven years. In view of judgment of the Apex Court
in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar ( supra), the police may
resort to arrest only when necessary and if the applicant fails to cooperate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:921
3 MCRC-60235-2025
with the investigation. The applicant should first be summoned to cooperate
in the investigation, and if he does so, arrest should not be effected. The
guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs.
State of Bihar (supra) for offences punishable up to seven years are as
follows:
"9.1 Section 41 Cr.P.C. mandates that arrest should not
be made merely because a person is accused of an offence
punishable up to seven years. Arrest is justified only if
necessary to prevent further offences, ensure proper
investigation, prevent tampering with evidence, or secure the
attendance of the accused in court.
9.2 The police officer must record reasons in writing
for either making or not making an arrest.
9.3 Section 41-A Cr.P.C. requires issuance of a notice
to appear before the police where arrest is not required.
Compliance with the notice generally precludes arrest unless
reasons are recorded."
In view of the above principles and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Court directs as under:
i) The police may effect arrest of the applicant only if
deemed necessary after his failure to cooperate in the
investigation.
ii) The applicant shall first be summoned to cooperate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:921
4 MCRC-60235-2025
in the investigation. If he cooperates, there shall be no
occasion for arrest.
With the above directions, the present anticipatory bail application is
disposed of.
CC as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
