[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 MCRC-12737-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
MCRC No. 12737 of 2026
(GHANSHYAM PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 25-03-2026
Senior Advocate Shri S.K.Vyas along with Ms. Kanishka Bhardwaj,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Senior Advocate Shri Virendra Sharma along with Shri Satish Yadav,
learned counsel for the respondent [OBJ].
Shri Surendra Gupta GA for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, in
furtherance of his job of reporter had recorded a video, wherein the
complainant had made certain allegations against Swami Shanti
Swaroopanandji and other Saints of Ujjain but he did not publish the video.
Later, he is falsely implicated in this matter by the complainant at the
instance of Swami Shanti Swaroopanandji, with whom he has previous
dispute and litigations pending in the Court. Learned counsel referring to
letter dated 10/03/2026, contends that he has submitted a copy of digital
evidence to the SHO of Police Station - Mahakal, Ujjain along with
certificate under section 64 (c) of the Evidence Act.
Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for Shanti Swaroopanandji
objects to the application and contends that the video was recorded during a
sting operation to blackmail Shanti Swaroopanandji. When this fact was
revealed, the complainant had lodged FIR against the applicant. The
applicant had threatened complainant and called her to lodge false FIR
2 MCRC-12737-2026
against Shanti Swaroopanand, but instead the complainant revealed true facts
before the police and lodged FIR.
Apparently, there has been disputes and animosity between the
applicant and Shanti Swaroopanand, who is before this Court to object grant
of bail.
Learned counsel for the State, after referring to the case diary, submits
that although the disputed video interview of the complainant has been
included in the investigation, but the case diary does not reveal any
investigation with reference to concerned video. Learned counsel requests
for grant of short adjournment to seek instructions with regard to the
investigation carried out on the video interview recorded in pen-drive and
submitted to the SHO of Police Station - Mahakal, Ujjain (if any).
Considered. Prayer accepted.
It is noteworthy that initially, the FIR was registered for offence
punishable under sections 49, 61(2), 232(1), 351(3) , 296-B , 3(5) of the
BNS, 2023. All these offences are punishable with sentence upto seven
years, but later, the prosecution for offence punishable under section 248(b)
was added. Section 248(b) of the BNS, 2023 provides for punishment for
instituting any criminal proceedings on false charges with intent to cause
injury to any person. Presently, no criminal proceeding is instituted by the
applicant against the complainant or objector, therefore, prima-facie, the
allegation relating to offence punishable under section 248(b) of the BNS,
2023 is not sustainable at present. Further investigation may reveal the
ingredients of such accusation.
3 MCRC-12737-2026
Considering this aspect of the matter and all the other alleged offence
being punishable for imprisonment upto seven years, it is directed that no
coercive action be taken against the applicant till next date of hearing, except
in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar
Antil Vs. Central Bureau of investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51 provided, he
cooperates in the investigation.
It is also clarified that there is no stay on further investigation in the
matter.
Learned counsel for the State shall requisition and submit the updated
case diary along with status of the investigation with regard to alleged
interview recorded and submitted on pen-drive with the SHO of Police
Station - Mahakal, Ujjain (if any).
List the matter in next week.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
