IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 5 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 60420 of 2025

AJAY BHEEL AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput - Advocate for applicants.

Ms Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

ORDER contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

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

applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 222/2025

registered at Police Station Fatehgarh District Guna (M.P.) for the offences

punishable under Sections 34(2) & 49(a) of Excise Act.

According to the prosecution case, on 08.08.2025, the police seized 80 ltr.

of illicit liquor from the joint possession of applicants. On the basis of aforesaid,

crime has been registered against the applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have falsely been

implicated in the matter. Offence is triable by JMFC. Disposal of the matter will take long time. It is submitted that applicants are permanent resident of District Guna (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of

anticipatory bail is made.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by

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 arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2 The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. 7.3 In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required ? What purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has co