SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3477

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Priya Rally – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 9534/2026



Advocates:
Uma Kushwah[P-1],Advocate General[R-1]

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

th

ON THE 26 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9532 of 2026 MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vineet Saxena- Advocate and Shri Sajneev Kushwaha - Advocate and for the applicant.

Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate and Shri Kamal Mangal -

Advocate for respondent [COMP].

WITH MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9520 of 2026 GAUTAM RAI RALLY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vineet Saxena- Advocate and Shri Sajneev Kushwaha -

Advocate and for the applicant.

Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate and Shri Kamal Mangal -

Advocate for respondent [COMP].

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9523 of 2026 GULSHAN RAI RALLY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vineet Saxena- Advocate and Shri Sajneev Kushwaha -

Advocate and for the applicant.

Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate and Shri Kamal Mangal -

Advocate for respondent [COMP].

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9534 of 2026 SMT. PRIYA RALLY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vineet Saxena- Advocate and Shri Sajneev Kushwaha -

Advocate and for the applicant.

Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate and Shri Kamal Mangal -

Advocate for respondent [COMP].

ORDER This is second repeat applications filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. The earlier anticipatory bail applications filed by applicants-Smt. Priya Rally and Manvendra Singh Parihar and applicant- Gautam Rai Rally were dismissed on merits vide orders dated 10.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 40877 of 2025, 40881 of 2025 and 40875 of 2025.

The earlier anticipatory bail application filed by applicant - Gulshan Kumar Rally was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.34803 of 2025.

2. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with. Crime No.288 of 2025 registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 296, 308(7), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 351(3) and 61(2) of BNS.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, Dheeraj Prakash Agrawal, had lodged a written complaint alleging that on 21.10.2024, Gautam Rai Rally, Priya Rai Rally, and Gulshan Rai demanded a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from him for releasing a mortgaged property (residential property of "Ajanam Shanti Prakashan") from the loan account of their firm M/s Bharat School and Supplier. They assured him that after releasing the said property from the bank, they would sell it for Rs. 3 crores and hand it over to him. Relying upon their assurance, the complainant gave over Rs.30 lakhs to Gautam Rai Rally, obtaining his signatures on a voucher. Subsequently, on 28.10.2024, he paid another Rs. 10 lakhs, and on 30.10.2024, an additional Rs.10 lakhs in cash through Manvendra, an employee of Gautam Rai Rally. Manvendra gave a signed receipt, which also mentioned the loan account of M/s Bharat School and Supplier. However, when the complainant noticed a public auction notice in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar on 05.12.2024 regarding the mortgaged property of M/s Bharat School and Supplier with the bank, he came to know that the property claimed by the accused persons was in fact not mortgaged with Canara Bank, rather some other property was under mortgage. He further discovered that the accused persons had not deposited the sum of Rs.50 lakhs with the bank at all. When the complainant tried to contact the accused persons in this regard, they did not respond. Upon contacting Gautam Rai, he abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened to falsely implicate him and his family members in criminal cases. Thus, it is alleged that the accused persons, in collusion with their employee Manven

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top