[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Monu Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9789
1 MCRC-13093-2026
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. 13093 of 2026
MONU RAGHUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Harshit Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the applicant.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.64/2026 registered at Police Station Cantt., District Guna (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 4(A) of Public Gambling Act and Section
112 (1) and 238(a) of BNS.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the present
applicant is identical and akin to that of co-accused, namely, Mannu Soni @
Manohar Soni @ Manmohan Soni and Babu Kushwah, who have been
granted benefit of anticipatory bail vide orders dated 13.03.2026 and
16.03.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.11404/2026 and 12042/2026. On the
ground of parity, it is argued that the applicant is entitled to the same relief.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail; however, he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9789
2 MCRC-13093-2026
fairly does not dispute the fact that the case of the present applicant stands on
similar footing to that of co-accused Mannu Soni @ Manohar Soni @
Manmohan Soni and Babu Kushwah, who have already been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court.
Heard counsel for parties and perused the case diary.
The case of the applicant appears to be similar to that of co-accused
Mannu Soni @ Manohar Soni @ Manmohan Soni and Babu Kushwah, who
have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court. In the absence of any
distinguishing feature pointed out by the prosecution and in view of the
principle of parity, this Court sees no reason to take a different view from
that taken in the case of the aforesaid co-accused.
Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record and to
maintain parity, this Court is inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail
to the present applicant. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the
case, this application is allowed.
It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be
enlarged 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 the Arresting Officer for his appearance before it during
the course of investigation or before the trial Court concerned during trial, as
the case may be.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicant :-
(i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9789
3 MCRC-13093-2026
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 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.
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
