Sachin Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 2814 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sachin Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9869




                                                             1                         MCRC-12926-2026
                             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. 12926 of 2026
                                                     SACHIN DUBEY
                                                         Versus
                                             THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Rameshwar Rawat - 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.25/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Datia (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(4), 340(1), 112(2), 3 (5) of BNS and Section 3/4 of Public Gambling Act and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the present applicant is identical and akin to that of co-accused namely Dinesh Rawat, who has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail vide order dated 09.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.9948/2026. 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:9869

2 MCRC-12926-2026 fairly does not dispute the fact that the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing to that of co-accused Dinesh Rawat, who has 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 Dinesh Rawat, who has 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 bond executed by him;

ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9869

3 MCRC-12926-2026 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