[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8788
1 MCRC-9362-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9362 of 2026
MANGILAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Singh Jadoun - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is first application under Section 482 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.332/2023 registered at Police Station Fatehgarh District Guna for the
offences punishable under Section 34(2) of Excise Act.
The allegation against the applicant is that he was found in possession
of 70 litres of unauthorized liquor.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted
that there is neither direct nor indirect evidence available against the
applicant and the case has been registered against him with mala fide
intention. The counsel further submits that the applicant was not present at
the place of occurrence and has no connection with the alleged offence. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8788
2 MCRC-9362-2026
also submitted that during the course of investigation, the applicant was
served with a notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC and cooperated with
the investigation; however, no information was provided to him at the time of
filing of the charge sheet. The alleged seizure of 70 liters of liquor does not
belong to the applicant and the case has been falsely registered against him.
Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has no criminal
antecedents. The investigation and trial are likely to take considerable
time. He is a permanent resident of District Guna (M.P.) and there is no
likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He
is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the conditions that may
be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has prayed for its rejection.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without
commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the
applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of his 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 will remain operative subject to compliance of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8788
3 MCRC-9362-2026
following conditions by the applicant:-
(i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
(ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/ trial, as the case
may be;
(iii) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police
Officer, as the case may be;
(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of
bail;
(v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial;
(vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court/Police Station concerned
for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
