IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47616 of 2025 SONIL JAIN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Jai Prakash Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the State.

ORDER The applicant has filed this first application under Section 482 of BNSS/438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.447/2025 registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna for the offence punishable under Section 112, 49 of BNS and Section 4(A) of the Public Gambling Act.

As per prosecution story, it is alleged against the applicant/accused Sonil Jain that, along with co-accused Gagan Sikarwar and Ishu Sharma, he formed a group or acted as a member of a gang and, on 21.09.2025, during the India–Pakistan cricket match, engaged in online betting, thereby had committed a minor organized offence punishable under Section 4(A) of the Public Gambling (Madhya Pradesh) Act, 1976, read with Sections 112 and

49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, [2014 (8) SCC 273], which directs that in offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, police should avoid unnecessary arrests. It was argued that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail, and arrest should be resorted to only after recording reasons and when necessary for investigation.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Having heard the parties and perusing the case diary, this Court finds that the offences registered against the applicant are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. In view of judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra), the police may resort to arrest only when necessary and if the applicant fails to cooperate with the investigation. The applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation, and if he does so, arrest should not be effected.

The guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra) for offences punishable up to seven years are as follows:

"9.1 Section 41 Cr.P.C. mandates that arrest should not be made merely because a person is accused of an offence punishable up to seven years. Arrest is justified only if necessary to prevent further offences, ensure proper investigation, prevent tampering with evidence, or secure the attendance of the accused in court.

9.2 The police officer must record reasons in writing for either making or not making an arrest.

9.3 Section 41-A Cr.P.C. requires issuance of a notice to appear before the police where arrest is not required. Compliance with the notice generally precludes arrest unless reasons are recorded."

In view of the above principles and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court directs as under:

i) The police may effect arrest of the applicant only if deemed necessary after his failure to cooperate in the investigation.

ii) The applicant shall first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If he cooperates, there shall be no occasion for arrest.

With the above directions, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

CC as per rules/directions. (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

JUDGE pwn*