[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deendayal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9600
1 MCRC-11568-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11568 of 2026
DEENDAYAL SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ram Kishor Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This is the first application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory
bail in connection with Crime No.88 of 2026 registered at Police Station
Morar, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 108
of BNS, 2023.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the case of the
present applicant is akin to the case of other co-accused, namely, Edal Singh
Kansana who has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order
dated 11.03.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.11410 of 2026, therefore, claiming
parity, it is prayed that the present application be allowed and benefit of bail
be also granted to the applicant.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection by contending that looking to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9600
2 MCRC-11568-2026
nature of allegations and the gravity of offence, no case for anticipatory bail
is made out.
The case of the applicant appears to be similar to the case of co-
accused Edal Singh Kansana who has been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.11410 of 2026.
Thus, there is no reason to take a different view than the one taken in the
case of above said co-accused.
In view of above and looking to the fact that the material placed on
record does not disclose the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice,
this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the
applicant. Accordingly, this Court, without commenting on the merits of the
case, is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be extended the benefit
of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed
that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail
upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Arresting Officer, subject to compliance of the 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9600
3 MCRC-11568-2026
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 will not seek unnecessary
adjournments during the trial;
v) The applicant shall not commit any other offence
during the period of bail;
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
pwn*
