IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 100 of 2026

ARVIND KUMAR GUNKAR

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Rishi Kumar Soni - Advocate for the applicant.

Ms Kalpana Parmar - PL for the respondent/State.

ORDER for a discussion. Later, when Naresh and others went to Arvind’s house, Arvind went upstairs, began abusing them, and suddenly fired his gun. The shot hit Naresh’s leg, causing him to fall to the ground. On the basis of this complaint, crime was registered against the accused persons.

This is first bail application under Section 482 of BNSS preferred by

the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.50/2025

registered at Police Station Girwai District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 125, 3(5), 110 of BNS and Section 30 of

Arms Act.

According to the prosecution, on 13.03.2025, the complainant Naresh

Kumar Savita lodged a Dehati Nalishi reporting that his brother Satish had a long-standing dispute with their neighbour Arvind Gunkar over some borrowed money. Due to this issue, tensions had been ongoing between them. A day earlier, on 12.03.2025 at about 6:30 PM, Arvind arrived at Naresh’s house with his wife, holding a gun, and asked for Satish. When he learned Satish was not at home, he told them to send Satish to his own house

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the matter. The crowd of complainant side came and abused and threatened the applicant, therefore, out of fear during the incident, he went to the roof, and fired a warning shot in the air. It is stated that the first report of the incident was made by the applicant himself. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation. There is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In view of the above, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

In the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273) , it has been directed by the Apex Court that in offences involving punishment up to seven years' imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the applicant does not cooperate in the investigation. The applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the applicant cooperates in the investigation, then the occasion of his arrest should not arise. For ready reference and convenience, the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are enumerated below:-

7.1 From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is a