IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1862 of 2026 DINESH GARG Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri Devendra Kumar Prajapati and Shri Shubham Manchani, learned counsel for the applicant..

Shri B.D. Singh Addl.A.G appeared for respondent/State.

ORDER This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.11/2025 registered at the Police Station STF. District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 318,336(3),338,340(2),61(2) of BNS, 2023 and section 12 of Passport Act, 1967. Applicant is in detention since

01.08.2025.

2. As per prosecution story, applicant alongwith other co-accused persons used forged and fabricated documents for the purpose of obtaining Indian passport.

F.I.R was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is engaged in the activity as agent for getting the passport and for that he was in contact of accused persons. He has further submitted that there is no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The prosecution has heavily relied on the material like CDR details, mobile locations etc. whereby it is found that applicant is found that applicant is in contact of the other accused persons. He has further submitted that for getting the passport of the co-accused persons he has rendered the service and, therefore, he has received amount of Rs.10,000/- which also has been considered as circumstances by the investigating agency against the present applicant. He has submitted that the ground of arrest is not conveyed to the applicant as required in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) -(2024) 8 SCC 254 which are mentioned in paragraphs No.3,21,24,26,28,29, 48 and 49. He has further submitted that in view of the judgment in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana-2025-2025 SCC Online SC-269, the grounds raised is also required to be conveyed in appropriate manner and is not mere formality. He has further relied on the judgment in the case of Marfing Tamang Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025-SCC OnLine Del 548 and has submitted that on that count also, applicant is entitled to get benefit of bail as no ground of arrest is informed to the present applicant. Lastly, he has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra-2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356 and has submitted in view of paragraph 37 onwards, the case of the present applicant is required to be considered as no compliance is made by the respondent/authority as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He has further submitted that this is first application on behalf of the applicant and he is in custody since 01.08.2025 and now investigation is already completed, therefore, case of the applicant should be considered for bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submission made by counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the applicant being government servant is indulge in such activities and as per submission made by applicant himself, he has received Rs.10,000/- as fees for rendering service for getting the passport which itself indicates that he is directly involved in the offence in question. He has further submitted that the applicant has also indulge in such activity by giving service to such other persons who are not citizens of India and by concealing such fact in the application for getting passport on the basis of documents which are suspicious in nature. He has further submitted that the amount which is received by the applicant; the fact that applicant is government servant itself suggests his involvement in criminal activity and considering the fact that such offence which is committed by applicant has larger implication on the society and also on