[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Sinha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8214
1 MCRC-11110-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 10 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11110 of 2026
SANJAY SINHA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Nikhil Shivhare - Advocate for respondent [COMP].
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.636/2022
registered at Police Station Thatipur District Gwalior for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 406 of IPC.
As per prosecution case, complainant Sandeep Mithas submitted a written
application at the police station Thathipur stating that he operates his firm named
S.S.K. Enterprises. After reading an advertisement in a daily newspaper issued by
GGJ Solutions Private Limited, Gurugram, whose directors were Sanjay Sinha
and Yograj Sharma, he visited Gurugram to meet them; however, instead of the
directors, he met the staff members of the company who informed him that in
order to conduct business with their company he would be required to deposit
Rs.20,00,000/-, to which he agreed on an installment basis and accordingly
executed a conditional agreement wherein it was represented that the amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8214
2 MCRC-11110-2026
Rs.10,00,100/- deposited by him as security would be refunded later. This
agreement was executed on 22.01.2022, though prior to the agreement the
complainant had already transferred the said amount from his Punjab National
Bank account to the bank account of GGJ Solutions; however, after receiving the
money the company failed to provide any goods or materials to him and, by
deceitfully inducing him with the assurance that he would be made the exclusive
super franchisee of the district, continued to give only alluring promises without
supplying any goods till date. Further, as per the instructions of the company, the
complainant was directed to arrange a warehouse for storage purposes, for which
he rented a warehouse and paid rent at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month, yet the
company never sent any goods to be stored there; and when the complainant
demanded the return of his money, a video conference was held with directors
Sanjay Sinha and Yograj Sharma, who repeatedly avoided repayment by giving
assurances and continued to evade the matter despite several demands, thereby
dishonestly misappropriating the complainant's money through fraudulent means,
and it was also come to know that similar FIRs have been registered against them
at different places and another person, Sushma Goswami, had also invested
Rs.1,50,000/- in the said company. On the basis of the complainant's application,
Crime No. 636/2022 under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code was
registered at Police Station Thathipur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and that the alleged offences alleged against
the applicant are punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years'
imprisonment. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , it was contended
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8214
3 MCRC-11110-2026
that in cases where the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment up to
seven years, the police authorities are required to exercise caution and avoid
unnecessary arrests, and are further obligated to record reasons justifying the
necessity of arrest before taking such action. It was therefore argued that the
applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail and that arrest, if at all
deemed necessary, ought to be effected only after recording cogent and justifiable
reasons and strictly in circumstances where such arrest becomes absolutely
necessary for the purpose of investigation.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8214
4 MCRC-11110-2026
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 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
ojha
