Sumit Arya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67901
1 MCRC-34579-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34579 of 2026
SUMIT ARYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt Senior Advocate with Shri Mayank Sharma -
counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sundaram Singh - counsel for the objector
Shri Mayur Gulati - Panel Lawyer for State
ORDER
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail
relating to FIR/Crime No.223/2026 registered at Police Station- M.P.Nagar
District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296,
115(2), 351(2) of BNS and later on Section 118(2) of BNS has been added.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 11.06.2026, the
complainant/informant, Rohit Rai, appeared before Police Station M.P.
Nagar, Bhopal, and lodged a written report stating that on 10.06.2026, at
about 09:00 p.m., he, along with his friends, namely Vivek Soni, Rajendra
Lovanshi, Sumit Arya and Kamlesh Vishwakarma, had gathered in Room
No. 204 of Nisarg Hotel, Zone-I, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, to celebrate the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
11:50:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67901
2 MCRC-34579-2026
birthday of his friend Vivek Soni. It is further the case of the prosecution that

Kamlesh Vishwakarma was required to recover certain money from Sumit
Arya. During the intervening night of 10/11.06.2026, a dispute arose
between Kamlesh Vishwakarma and Sumit Arya in relation to the said
monetary transaction. It is alleged that, during the course of the altercation,
Sumit Arya started hurling filthy abuses to Kamlesh Vishwakarma. When
Kamlesh Vishwakarma objected to such abusive language and refused to
retaliate, Sumit Arya, in a fit of rage, assaulted him with a glass liquor bottle,
striking him on the left side of his head and cheek, as a result of which he
sustained bleeding injuries. It is further alleged that, after assaulting Kamlesh
Vishwakarma, Sumit Arya extended threats to kill him. Accordingly, the
present case was registered against the accused person under the relevant
provisions of law.
3. Counsel for the applicant submit that the learned Trial Court has
failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has
mechanically rejected the application of the applicant without considering
the material available on record and the grounds raised by the applicant. The
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
has not committed any offence as alleged and has been arraigned in the case
arising out of a trivial altercation which took place during a private gathering
on account of a monetary dispute. Even as per the prosecution story, the
alleged incident occurred suddenly during a birthday celebration following a
verbal altercation between the parties in relation to a monetary transaction.
There is no allegation or material to suggest that the applicant had any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
11:50:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67901
3 MCRC-34579-2026
premeditated intention or prior meeting of minds to cause the alleged

injuries. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred in the heat of passion
during a sudden quarrel. The prosecution itself alleges that the liquor bottle
available at the spot was used during the course of the altercation. Thus, even
if the allegations are taken at their face value, the incident appears to be a
spontaneous act arising out of a sudden quarrel, and there is no allegation of
any pre-planned or deliberate act on the part of the applicant warranting his
custodial interrogation. It is respectfully submitted that the essential
ingredients of Section 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is
a non-bailable provision, are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of
the present case. There is no material available on record to establish that the
injured sustained "grievous hurt" within the meaning of law. The medical
evidence does not disclose any fracture or other injury falling within the
statutory definition of grievous hurt. In the absence of the essential
ingredients of the said provision, the invocation of Section 118(2) of the
BNS is wholly misconceived. At the highest, the allegations, even if
accepted in their entirety, may constitute an offence punishable under
Section 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is a bailable
offence. Therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory
bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the power of
anticipatory bail is intended to protect the personal liberty of a person where
the circumstances do not justify his custodial detention. Reliance is placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
11:50:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67901
4 MCRC-34579-2026
particularly the observations contained in paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 thereof,

as relied upon by the applicant. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
hereinabove, there is no legal or factual impediment in granting anticipatory
bail to the applicant. The applicant, therefore, most respectfully prays that
this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to enlarge him on anticipatory
bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid offence, on
such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in
the interest of justice.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations levelled against the
applicant are serious in nature. It is submitted that, during the course of the
altercation, the applicant assaulted the injured Kamlesh Vishwakarma with a
glass liquor bottle, causing bleeding injuries on the left side of his head and
cheek. Thereafter, the applicant also extended threats to kill the injured.
Learned counsel for the State further submits that the nature and manner of
assault cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that the incident
occurred during a sudden quarrel. The alleged weapon of assault, i.e. a glass
liquor bottle, was used to cause injuries on a vital part of the body of the
injured. The nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which the assault
was committed are matters which require proper investigation and
appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
investigation is at its initial stage and custodial interrogation of the applicant
may be necessary for ascertaining the complete facts and circumstances of
the occurrence, including the manner of assault and the circumstances
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
11:50:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67901
5 MCRC-34579-2026
leading to the injuries sustained by the injured. Grant of anticipatory bail at

this stage may adversely affect the investigation. It is further submitted that
the plea regarding the absence of grievous hurt and the applicability of
Section 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, cannot be conclusively
determined merely on the basis of the submissions advanced by the
applicant. The nature of the injuries is required to be considered on the basis
of the medical evidence and other material collected during investigation. At
this stage, the benefit of such disputed factual contentions ought not to be
extended to the applicant.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the
material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the
allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. The manner of assault
alleged by the prosecution, namely, use of a glass liquor bottle to inflict
injuries on the head and face of the injured, cannot be treated as an
insignificant incident merely because the occurrence allegedly arose during a
sudden quarrel. The contention regarding the applicability of Section 118(2)
of the BNS involves appreciation of the medical evidence and other material
collected during investigation and, therefore, cannot be conclusively
adjudicated at this stage. The fact that the alleged weapon was a liquor bottle
available at the spot does not, at this stage, completely rule out the possibility
of the applicant having intentionally used the same to cause injuries to the
injured. Further, the investigation is stated to be at an initial stage. The nature
of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the injuries sustained by the injured
and other attending circumstances are required to be properly investigated.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
11:50:02

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67901
6 MCRC-34579-2026
At this stage, the Court is not persuaded to hold that custodial interrogation is

wholly unnecessary. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel
for the applicant are concerned, there is no dispute with the settled principle
that personal liberty is an important consideration while deciding an
application for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the manner in which the
injured is alleged to have been assaulted with a glass liquor bottle, the
injuries sustained by him, the allegation of criminal intimidation and the
present stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.
7. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application filed by the
applicant is rejected.
(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE
S /-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
11:50:02