[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:941
1 MCRC-60163-2025
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. 60163 of 2025
SATISH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Bansal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.
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.963/2023 registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for the offence
punishable under Sections 353, 186, 341, 506 and 34 of the IPC.
As per prosecution story, on 07.12.2023, Sub-Inspector Ravindra Singh
Kushwaha, along with Constable Sunil Lodhi and Constable Naresh, while on area
patrolling duty, reached near Bhujbal Petrol Pump. At that time, a secret informer
informed them that from the side of Badagaon police station, a black-coloured
Scorpio vehicle without a registration number was coming, carrying some goons
armed with weapons with the intention to commit an offence. Thereupon,
Ravindra Kushwaha, along with the police force, reached beneath the Badagaon
bridge and set up a checking point. After some time, a black-coloured Scorpio was
seen approaching. When signalled to stop, the vehicle stopped at some distance.
Meanwhile, another white-coloured Scorpio vehicle came from behind and
blocked the police vehicle from the front. From the said vehicle, co-accused Kanha
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:941
2 MCRC-60163-2025
Yadav and Rajesh Yadav alighted, and from the black Scorpio, the
applicant/accused Satish Yadav got down and threatened that if the police
continued to chase him, he would run them over with the vehicle. Thereafter, he
issued threats and fled away in the Scorpio. The co-accused Kanha Yadav and
Rajesh Yadav parked their vehicle in front of the police vehicle and threatened
Sub-Inspector Ravindra Kushwaha, stating that they would strip him of his
uniform and hang it on a peg, and further threatened the police personnel saying
that they would teach them how to do their job. The accused persons stood in front
of the complainant's vehicle, thereby obstructing traffic, and thereafter fled away
from the spot while continuing to issue threats. 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 the alleged offences carry a
maximum punishment of seven years' imprisonment. Placing reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and
Another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, it was argued that in cases where the
offence is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the police are required
to avoid unnecessary arrests and must record reasons before effecting arrest. It was
further contended that the co-accused persons, namely Kanha alias Kanheya
Yadav and Rajesh Yadav, have already been extended the benefit of the principles
laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra), and therefore the applicant is also entitled to
the same benefit. It is argued that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail, and
arrest should be resorted to only after recording reasons and when necessary for
investigation.
Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed
for its rejection, submitting that the applicant has as many as 23 criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:941
3 MCRC-60163-2025
antecedents.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that out of the said
cases, the applicant has already been acquitted in the majority of them, and mere
reference to past cases cannot be a ground to deny the relief sought.
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:941
4 MCRC-60163-2025
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 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*
