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

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1413 of 2026 YUDHISHTHIR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vikram Singh Chauhan - Advocate for applicant.

Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

ORDER The applicant has filed this first application under 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.736/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bhind for offences punishable under Sections 125, 296, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS further added Section 110 of BNS and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act.

As per prosecution story, on 02.11.2024 at around 4:00 PM, the complainant Kuldeep, along with his brother-in-law Vikas and the son of Sadwai, Gajendra alias Lee Bhadauria, went to Mira Colony to the residence of Ramlakhan Pandit to have a horoscope read, where the applicant/accused Yudhishthir, along with co-accused Shatrughan and Ashwini Parihar, met them and abused the complainant Kuldeep and upon his objection, Yudhishthir and Shatrughan fired shots in the air with a pistol while Ashwini fired in the air with a country-made firearm, which incident was witnessed by Vikas and Gajendra alias Lee, and thereafter all three accused threatened to kill them if they went to lodge a report.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years' imprisonment. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, it was argued that in cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the police are required to avoid unnecessary arrests and must record reasons before effecting arrest. It was further contended that the co-accused persons, namely Kanha alias Kanheya Yadav and Rajesh Yadav, have already been extended the benefit of the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra), and therefore the applicant is also entitled to the same benefit. It is argued that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail, and arrest should be resorted to only after recording reasons and when necessary for investigation.

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection, submitting that the applicant has as many as four criminal antecedents.

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 aft