[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6215
1 MCRC-56877-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56877 of 2025
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Dutt - Senior Advocate with Shri Nishank Pal Varma -
Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Parimal Chaturvedi - Advocate for the objector.
Shri Satish Kumar Dawra - Advocate for the objector.
Shri Kamal Singh Baghel - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.273/2025
registered at Police Station - Vijay Nagar, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 of IPC. The applicant is in
custody since 11/09/2025.
2 . The senior counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted
that the applicant has not played any active participation except the
allegation that he was also part of the scheme. Now, the charge-sheet has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6215
2 MCRC-56877-2025
been filed. It is further submitted that the disputed amount in question is of
Rs.3,80,000/- which has already been paid way back by the present
applicant to the complainant. The offence is triable by JMFC. The applicant
is in custody since 11.09.2025.
3. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for the
applicant relies upon the judgement of the Apex Court passed in the cases of
Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. Gunashekar and
Another reported in 2025 SCC SC 793, Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC
690 and particularly the fact that all the persons have filed complaint under
provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He has also
referred to judgment in the case of Kolla Veera Rahgav Rao Vs. Gorantla
Venkateswara Rao And Anr. reported in (2011) 2 SCC 703 as well as
judgment in the case of G.Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State of UP and
others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 and submits that such complaint can be
filed after filing of proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 on the basis of same transactions if not required to be considered,
is maintainable in the eyes of law. He has further submitted that there is one
report, which is submitted before the Authority concerned regarding the
threat of assault and regarding abduction of his child and by forcefully
executing a cheque in favour of the some of the alleged investors. It is
reported, much prior to the filing of final FIR. He has further contended that
the majority of the amount, which is mentioned in the transaction are by way
of cash and, therefore, he has contended that in view of the specific provision
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6215
3 MCRC-56877-2025
of Section 269 of the Income Tax, no such cash transaction beyond the limit
of 2 lakhs can be considered as a valid transaction and such FIR is filed for
the purpose to settle the score with the applicant. He has also submitted that
considering the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as earlier
judgments also, Section 406 and 420 of IPC cannot go together. The case of
the applicant for consideration of the bail is required to be considered.
4. Per contra, counsel for the State as well as objector have strongly
opposed the application and submitted that as per earlier report, which is
submitted against the some persons, who are not complainant in written
complaint, therefore it cannot be considered to be a counter blast. By
referring to that earlier FIR, which is produced on the record, it is submitted
that the present applicant has admitted some monetary transaction and, as
such, it can be considered as a self goal by the applicant. He has further
submitted that it is not correct to say that the entire majority of transaction is
entered into by paying the cash amount. Many of the transactions are by way
of cheque and he has further submitted that there are many other persons
now coming before the Police Authority by claiming that they are also
defrauded by the present applicant and, therefore, considering the such
economic offence, is required to be viewed seriously. In view of the
judgment in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 and in the case of Nimmagadda
Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported (2013) 7 SCC 466 and
such offences which are considered white collar crime required to be dealt
with in appropriate manner and nor leniency should be shown in such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6215
4 MCRC-56877-2025
offences. He has also referred to the judgment in the case of Correspondence,
RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar and Another reported
i n (2025) 5 SCC 793 para 22 and in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940)
Limited and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported
in (2024) 10 SCC 690.
5. Learned counsel for the State has also supported the submissions
made by the counsel for the complainant and has submitted that many
people are coming forward, who are registering the statement regarding the
complaint about the such offences. He has opposed the bail application of the
applicant and submits that if he is granted bail it will create wrong
impression in the society as huge amount is involved in the present case.
6. In the rebuttal counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
amount as alleged by the complainant which is 18 crores, is not involved in
the the present proceedings but as per the charge-sheet approximately an
amount of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- is involved pursuant to present FIR for which
the charge-sheet is filed.
7. On query, counsel for the applicant upon instructions has submitted
that he will deposit 50% of the amount of Rs. 61,00,000/- within a week
from today before the concerned trial Court that means Rs. 30,50,000/- and
remaining amount of Rs.30,50,000/- be deposited within six weeks
thereafter. It is clarified that on depositing of first part of amount that is Rs.
30,50,000/- within seven days from today, the applicant shall be released on
bail by executing bail bond. He will not indulge in any activity and he will
not leave the State of Madhya Pradesh without prior permission of the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6215
5 MCRC-56877-2025
Court. He will deposit his passport and he will also give his correct address
and will not change his address without prior permission of the Court and he
will mark his presence on the 2nd and 4th Monday of every month before
the concerned police Station. The petitioner after depositing Rs.30,50,000/-,
on release, petitioner shall also file an undertaking to the effect that he will
deposit rest of the 30,50,000/- within prescribed period of six weeks and that
undertakings shall be filed before the trial Court within a week after his
release. The such amount is deposited by applicant is subject to any further
order passed by this Court or by the trial Court.
8. Heard the submissions and perused the case diary.
9. Considering the rival contention and also considering the fact that
the applicant is in custody since 11/09/2025. Charge sheet is now filed,
without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is
allowed b y imposing certain conditions, namely,: that the applicant shall
deposit his passport before the concerned trial Court and shall not leave
geographical limit of Madhya Pradesh State without prior permission of the
Court; he also mark his presence on every 1st Monday of the each month till
the further order passed by this Court; and it is also open to the investigating
agency to take further recourse available under the law to safeguard the
interest of the complainant in appropriate manner.
10. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6215
6 MCRC-56877-2025
be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial. In case, if the applicant is
found indulging in similar offences, then this order granting bail to the
applicant shall stand cancelled. The applicant will also strictly comply the
conditions mentioned in above mentioned para No.8.
11. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 480(3)
of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
R
