[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohmmad Azhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19566
1 MCRC-9992-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9992 of 2026
MOHMMAD AZHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Kumar Pandey - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Himanshu Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Anjul Ayank Mishra, DSP, Jabalpur is present before the Court.
ORDER
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to
FIR/Crime No.05/2025 registered at Police Station - Crime Branch, District -
Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of BNS,
2023 and 66 d of I.T. Act. Applicant is in detention since 06.02.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that direction given in
the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and another (2022) 10 SCC 51 and in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273 is not complied with by the authority .
He has referred to the provisions of Section 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS,
whereby under Section 318(4), the punishment prescribed is upto seven
years. He has also submitted that under Section 66 D of IT Act, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19566
2 MCRC-9992-2026
punishment prescribed is upto three years. He has submitted that as such
looking to the Section 318(4) of BNS, no offence is made out against the
applicant, looking to the language of the section and facts of the present
case. It is submitted that the applicant is aged 24 years and having no
criminal antecedents registered against him and has been falsely implicated.
He has submitted that even strict condition including deposit of some amount
can be imposed if the Court is considering his case for bail and he has shown
willingness to deposit such amount. Trial will take considerable time to
conclude, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
3 . Learned counsel for the State has submitted that pursuant to the oral
direction given by this Court, concerned officer Shri Anjul Ayank Mishra,
DSP, Jabalpur is present in the Court and Smt. Pratirsha Marko,
Investigating Officer, who has initially carried out the investigation in the
matter and has fairly submitted that after perusing the papers of investigation
that no notice is issued under Section 41 or 41 (A) of Cr.P.C. and considering
the fact that the investigation is carried out in cautious manner, as different
accused are residing in different State and initially the present applicant and
thereafter the other accused, who is from Srinagar is arrested in the first
week of February. Therefore, investigation is going on and charge sheet is
not yet filed. Considering the fact that the applicant and other accused are
residing in Srinagar and Saharanpur and there are chances that they will not
available for trial. He has further submitted that there is huge cyber fraud
taken place to the tune of Rupees Two Crores and Twenty Seven Lakhs, out
of this, the present applicant has participated in the transaction to the extent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19566
3 MCRC-9992-2026
of Rs.8.50 Lakhs and therefore, considering the increasing rate of cyber
fraud, Court should not consider the case of the applicant for grant of bail as
investigation is still not complete. He has further submitted that if the Court
is inclined to consider the case for granting bail, then strict conditions may
be imposed on the applicant in order to ensure his availability during the
course of any further investigation.
4. I have considered the rival submission made at the Bar and perused
the case diary.
6 . Considering the age of the present applicant who is 24 years and
having no criminal antecedents, however, considering the fact that the
applicant is residing in some other State at Saharanpur and now almost the
investigation is over and on the verge of conclusion. Considering the period
of investigation carried out against the accused, I am of the view that the
interest of justice will survive if case of the applicant is considered for bail
by imposing some appropriate conditions. Considering the seriousness of the
offence, the larger interest of society, and the personal liberty of the
individual, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be
served by imposing appropriate conditions. Therefore, without expressing
any view on the merits of the case, I deem it a fit case to release the applicant
on bail. Therefore, the application is allowed on following conditions.
1. The applicant shall deposit Rs.5 Lakh within 48 years
from today before the concerned trial Court. On deposit
of such amount, the concerned trial Court shall further
coordinate with the Jail Authority to release of applicant
from the concerned jail.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19566
4 MCRC-9992-2026
2. The present applicant shall also file an undertaking
on affidavit that he will remain present before the
Investigating Officer as well as during the course of
trial without any unjustified delay and without any
default.
3. He shall provide his permanent address with address
proof and contact numbers to the concerned police
station.
4. He will deposit his passport, if any, before the
concerned trial Court.
5. He will not indulge in any such activity which affects
the process of investigation during trial in any manner.
6. He shall regularly mark his presence before the
concerned Police Station on first Saturday of every
month till trial gets over.
7 . It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his
regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he
shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it
during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section
480(3) of BNSS, 2023.
8. He shall strictly follow all above mentioned conditions. He shall
not violate any of the conditions otherwise it will be open for the prosecution
to pray for cancellation of bail.
9. This Court is feeling disturbed due to non-compliance of mandatory
clause of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. on directions issued in the case of Arnesh
Kumar (supra). It is also relevant to note, by considering the judgment
o f Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19566
5 MCRC-9992-2026
(2022) 10 SCC 51, that for non-compliance of section 41 and 41 (A) of
Cr.P.C., the concerned trial Court is directed to seriously look into the matter
and take action by informing Higher authorities, as police authority has not
complied with the directions, which is apparent from the record of the
present case.
10. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in
case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become
ineffective.
11. Certified copy as per rules.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
b
