[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinayak Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9788
1 MCRC-13305-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13305 of 2026
VINAYAK GARG
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Parashar - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms Anjali Gyanani - GA for the respondent/State.
Shri Mohit Bhadoriya - Advocate and Ms. Amisha Sharma - Advocate for
the respondent/Complainant.
ORDER
The applicant has filed this First application filed under Section 482 of
BNSS/438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.419/2024 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road District Gwalior in
relation to the offence punishable under Sections 109, 191 (2), 191(3), 296
and 190 of BNS.
3. As per prosecution story, the complainant, Deepak Singh
Chauhan, lodged an FIR alleging that on 25.10.2024 at about 1:00 PM, the
applicant along with co-accused persons allegedly arrived at the
complainant's farmhouse (Baraua Pichhor Farm House) armed with guns,
sticks and rods. It is alleged that they broke the boundary gate lock and
entered the premises. The complainant and his family members reached the
spot, where accused Sanjay Garg purportedly abused and instigated co-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9788
2 MCRC-13305-2026
accused persons to open fire. It is alleged that Vinayak Garg and others fired
with a .315 bore rifle and Sanjay Garg fired with a 12-bore gun with intent to
kill.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted
that the applicant and his father, Sanjay Garg, are long-time residents of
Gwalior and have been engaged in the automobile business for the past thirty
years, enjoying a good reputation in society. It is further submitted that the
dispute arose out of a property transaction, which once belonged to the
complainant. In fact, the complainant, Deepak Singh Chauhan earlier was
running a college under a society and for that had taken a loan and had
mortgaged the property with Allahabad Bank. Upon default in repayment,
the account was declared NPA and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act,
2002 were initiated. The property was subsequently was assigned vide deed
dated 27.12.2018 by Allahabad Bank to one Encore Asset Reconstruction
Company Pvt. Ltd.. Since the complainant failed to hand over possession,
proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were initiated before
the Collector, District Gwalior, who directed delivery of possession.
Thereafter, the applicant's father purchased the property in an auction from
Encore Group through a registered sale deed dated 26.08.2022, thereby
becoming the lawful owner. Counsel submits that prior to the present FIR,
on 25.10.2024, when the applicant and his father visited the property, the
complainant attempted to obstruct them and allegedly fired shots, threatening
them. In this regard, the applicant's father had lodged an FIR against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9788
3 MCRC-13305-2026
complainant. It is contended that though it is alleged that the applicant had
fired a .315 bore firearm, in fact the present applicant was unarmed and had
merely accompanied his father, and with no specific overt act. It is further
argued that no weapon has been recovered from the applicant and the
allegations in the FIR are general in nature. It is further submitted that even if
it is assumed for the sake of argument that the applicant had used a firearm,
the injuries alleged are inconsistent with the use of a .315 bore gun. Counsel
submits that video footage and photographs of the incident are available,
which prima facie show that the complainant was the aggressor. It is also
contended that the investigation has not been conducted fairly and relevant
material produced by the applicant has not been considered. It is additionally
submitted that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this
Court and the case of the present applicant stands on a better footing. The
applicant is a permanent resident of District Gwalior, there is no likelihood
of absconding or tampering with evidence, and he is ready to cooperate with
the investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be granted
anticipatory bail.
5 . Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the
counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and prayed for its dismissal
submitting that the allegations contained therein clearly disclosed the
commission of serious and cognizable offences involving the use of
firearms, criminal intimidation, unlawful entry, and an attempt to cause fatal
injuries to the complainant and his family members. It was contended that
the FIR specifically attributes distinct roles to each of the accused persons,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9788
4 MCRC-13305-2026
including the present petitioners, and that the prosecution version is duly
supported by medical evidence showing gunshot injuries sustained by the
complainant and other injured witnesses. The nature, location, and gravity of
the injuries, as recorded in the medical examination reports, prima facie
corroborate the allegation of firing with deadly weapons.
6. It was further submitted that the petitioners, along with other co-
accused, arrived at the complainant's farmhouse during late night hours
armed with deadly weapons, including a .315 bore rifle and a 12-bore gun,
forcibly broke open the boundary wall and gate, and entered the premises
with clear criminal intent. The acts attributed to them demonstrate
premeditation and concert, thereby attracting the relevant provisions of the
BNSS, 2023 relating to abetment, common intention, and criminal
intimidation.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature of allegations and the injuries sustained by the injured, without
commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the
applicant deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.
9. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.
10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicant:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9788
5 MCRC-13305-2026
(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 herself in extending 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;
(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.
11. Application stands allowed and disposed of.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court/Police Station
concerned for compliance.
13. Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
