Nalini Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 2442 MP

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2442 MP
Judgement Date : 12 March, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nalini Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8640




                                                             1                          MCRC-11786-2026
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                       BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                 ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
                                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11786 of 2026
                                                     NALINI SHARMA
                                                          Versus
                                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Upendra Yadav - Advocate for the applicant.

                                  Shri Samar Ghuraiya - DGA for the respondent/State.

                                                                 ORDER

The applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 482 of BNSS/438 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No. 470/2022 registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior, in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the M.P. Nikshepko Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant was approached by Mithlesh Sharma and Sanjay Gurjar, who introduced themselves as representatives of Surya Company, Malanpur, engaged in recurring deposit and fixed deposit schemes. They induced the complainant to invest money and called him to a program at a hotel in City Centre, where Mithlesh Sharma was introduced as Vice Chairman and Sanjay Gurjar as Regional

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8640

2 MCRC-11786-2026 Manager. It is alleged that the accused persons showed forged documents and induced the complainant to invest money with the assurance of higher returns. The complainant initially invested Rs. 14,18,000/-, which was promised to be returned as Rs. 26,03,500/-. It is further alleged that the accused persons obtained the complainant's cheque book and withdrew additional amounts, totaling Rs. 32,65,000/-. The complainant has alleged that the accused persons misappropriated the said amount and purchased benami properties. On these allegations, the FIR has been registered. However, there are no allegations against the present applicant in the entire FIR.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and is innocent. The applicant has no direct or indirect

connection or concern with the alleged transactions, yet she has been roped into the case without any substantive material. The allegations levelled in the FIR do not disclose any specific overt act attributable to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has been named in the FIR only because she is the daughter of one of the co-accused. The applicant is a permanent resident of Village Sakin, Post Sonmai, Block Dhanruaa, Patna, Bihar. There is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and she is ready to cooperate with the investigation and trial and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. In view of the foregoing, it is prayed that the benefit of anticipatory bail may be extended to the present applicant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8640

3 MCRC-11786-2026 and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the rival parties, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of her arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with one solvent surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority or Investigating Officer.

This order shall remain operative subject to compliance with the following conditions by the applicant:-

(i) The applicant shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in extending any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;