[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suman Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8403
1 MCRC-12005-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 31st OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12005 of 2026
SUMAN GARG AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vibhor Khandelwal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma - G.A. for the State.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma- Advocate for the objector.
ORDER
1] They are heard. Perused the case-diary.
2] This is the first application filed by the applicants Suman Garg and
Palash Garg under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023/Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory
bail as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime
No.651/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Mandsaur for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
3] The allegation against the applicants is of fraud by affixing the
signature of her father-in-law Govind Garg, a public notary. The
complainants Rakesh and Anil happen to be the sons of the father-in-law of
the applicant No.1.
4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that a property dispute is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8403
2 MCRC-12005-2026
going on between the parties, which has led to the lodging of the FIR,
alleging fraudulent notarization of various documents by the applicant Nos.1
and 2 on behalf of the father of the complainants, Govind Garg. It is
submitted that the applicant No.1 happens to be a woman aged 51 years,
whereas applicant No.2 happens to be her son, and both of them are lawyers,
and applicant No.1 herself is a notary. Copy of her license is also filed on
record. It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents. Thus, it
is submitted the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary,
and the anticipatory bail application be allowed.
5] Counsel for the State, as also the objector, on the other hand, have
vehemently opposed the application, and it is submitted that both the
applicants have been fraudulently notarizing various documents in the name
of the father of the complainants, and even the signature on the resignation
of the complainants' father is forged. Thus, it is submitted that no case for
grant of bail is made out.
6] Having considered the rival submissions, on perusal of the case
diary, and taking note of the dispute going on between the applicants and the
complainants, who belong to the same family whereas, both the applicants
are lawyers, practicing at Mandsaur, this Court finds that the custodial
interrogation of the applicants would not be necessary, especially when there
are no criminal antecedents.
7] Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest,
applicants shall be released on bail, upon their executing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8403
3 MCRC-12005-2026
furnishing separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer). The applicants shall make
themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when
required. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub
Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also
directed that if the applicant is found to be involved in violation of any of the
terms of this order, an application for cancellation of his bail may be filed
before the Trial Court itself, who shall decide the same in accordance with
law.
8] Accordingly, MCRC stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
