[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5205
1 MCRC-1862-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1862 of 2026
DINESH GARG
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri Devendra Kumar
Prajapati and Shri Shubham Manchani, learned counsel for the applicant..
Shri B.D. Singh Addl.A.G appeared for respondent/State.
ORDER
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to
FIR/Crime No.11/2025 registered at the Police Station STF. District Jabalpur for
the offences punishable under Sections 318,336(3),338,340(2),61(2) of BNS,
2023 and section 12 of Passport Act, 1967. Applicant is in detention since
01.08.2025.
2. As per prosecution story, applicant alongwith other co-accused persons used
forged and fabricated documents for the purpose of obtaining Indian passport.
F.I.R was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is engaged in the
activity as agent for getting the passport and for that he was in contact of accused
persons. He has further submitted that there is no criminal antecedents of the
applicant. The prosecution has heavily relied on the material like CDR details,
mobile locations etc. whereby it is found that applicant is found that applicant is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5205
2 MCRC-1862-2026
in contact of the other accused persons. He has further submitted that for getting
the passport of the co-accused persons he has rendered the service and, therefore,
he has received amount of Rs.10,000/- which also has been considered as
circumstances by the investigating agency against the present applicant. He has
submitted that the ground of arrest is not conveyed to the applicant as required in
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) -(2024) 8 SCC 254 which are mentioned in paragraphs
No.3,21,24,26,28,29, 48 and 49. He has further submitted that in view of the
judgment in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana-2025-2025 SCC
Online SC-269, the grounds raised is also required to be conveyed in appropriate
manner and is not mere formality. He has further relied on the judgment in the
case of Marfing Tamang Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025-SCC OnLine Del 548 and
has submitted that on that count also, applicant is entitled to get benefit of bail as
no ground of arrest is informed to the present applicant. Lastly, he has relied on
the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of
Maharashtra-2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356 and has submitted in view of paragraph
37 onwards, the case of the present applicant is required to be considered as no
compliance is made by the respondent/authority as directed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. He has further submitted that this is first application on behalf of the
applicant and he is in custody since 01.08.2025 and now investigation is already
completed, therefore, case of the applicant should be considered for bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submission made by counsel
for the applicant and has submitted that the applicant being government servant is
indulge in such activities and as per submission made by applicant himself, he has
received Rs.10,000/- as fees for rendering service for getting the passport which
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5205
3 MCRC-1862-2026
itself indicates that he is directly involved in the offence in question. He has
further submitted that the applicant has also indulge in such activity by giving
service to such other persons who are not citizens of India and by concealing such
fact in the application for getting passport on the basis of documents which are
suspicious in nature. He has further submitted that the amount which is received
by the applicant; the fact that applicant is government servant itself suggests his
involvement in criminal activity and considering the fact that such offence which
is committed by applicant has larger implication on the society and also on the
aspect of national security, no relief can be granted to the applicant. He has
further submitted that by referring to the Parcha Diary by indicating that on
01.08.2025 when applicant was arrested, the necessary instructions were given
which is recorded and pointed out the same from the Parcha Diary and, therefore,
he has submitted that contention which is raised in the present application that the
grounds raised are required to be informed, is complied with and, therefore, the
judgment which is cited by the counsel for the applicant including the last
judgment of Mihir Rajesh (supra) is not helpful to him. On the contrary, it is
submitted that the direction given in paragraph No.56 of the judgment Mihir
Rajesh (supra), have been complied with, therefore, considering the gravity of
offence and considering the impact of such offence on the society and national
security, court should not exercise discretion in favour of the present applicant.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh (supra) , has held as under :-
"56. In conclusion, it is held that:
(i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the
grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5205
4 MCRC-1862-2026
including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
(ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to
the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
(iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it
be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within
a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production
of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.
(iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and
subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at
liberty to be set free."
7. I have also considered the fact that the applicant is serving as
forest guard and as per allegation made in the F.I.R and as is emerging
from the other papers and even as per the submission made by counsel
for the applicant as well as respondent, it is undisputed position that the
applicant has played active role in getting the passport by rendered his
services to the persons who have not disclosed their citizenship
whether they are from Afgansthan or some other places. It also
transpires from the record that applicant has rendered services for
procuring such passport by such persons who are actually not citizens
of India as alleged in the F.I.R and the material which is available,
prima facie, indicates involvement and active participation of the
applicant. Moreover, from the record which is produced by counsel for
the State clearly indicates that compliance as per direction of the
Hon'ble Apex Court regarding furnishing ground of arrest is also
complied with by the respondent/authority. Therefore, considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5205
5 MCRC-1862-2026
gravity of offence; the prima facie role played by the present applicant,
even though he is government servant; considering the issue involved
in the matter is having impact on the national security and when prima
facie offence is made out under various sections of BNSS, Passport Act
and Foreigners Act, more particularly, when all the directions given in
para-56 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh (supra)
have been complied with by the respondent/authority, I am of the view
that no discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant as
there is no merit to consider the application for granting bail at this
stage.
8. In view of aforesaid discussion, the application is dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
MKL
