MP High Court Grants Bail To Former Bar President Over Protest Against Installation Of Ambedkar Statue In HC Premises At Gwalior

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (at Gwalior) on Wednesday (January 7) granted bail to former President of the High Court Bar Association Anil Mishra who was arrested in connection with a protest held in the city, allegedly against installation of a statue of BR Ambedkar within the high court premises at Gwalior.

The division bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia and Justice Ashish Shroti observed that the police had violated the mandatory requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing, as required under Section 47 BNSS. 

The court further noted that the petitioner was taken into custody prior to the registration of the FIR. As per the record, the petitioner was detained between 6:00 pm and 7:40 pm, the FIR was registered at 7:56 pm, while the formal arrest was shown at 11:40 pm.  

Holding the arrest to be illegal, the bench said:

"This Court is of considered opinion that the police has violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner ensured under Article 22(5 of Constitution of India and by not complying with the mandatory provision of Section 47 of BNSS. Thus, the arrest of the Petitioner is held to be illegal...The Petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Gwalior". 

Background

On November 12, 2025 one PG Najpande filed a PIL before the Principal Bench at Jabalpur challenging the Gwalior Collector's order granting permission to install the statue of BR Ambedkar at the premises.

Najpande contended that Mishra had, according to a media report, called for a protest on November 16, which was likely to cause unrest. Accordingly, Najpande sought protective orders to ensure the life and property of the residents were not affected. 

The bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf (at Jabalpur) directed the State to maintain law and order and safeguard public life and property. The Gwalior Collector was also directed to instruct the print and electronic media not to publish news relating to the protest call issued by Mishra.  

Proceedings Before Gwalior Bench

On January 3, Mishra approached the division bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia and Justice Ashish Shroti, challenging the action of police officers on the ground that he had been arrested before registration of FIR and that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to him. Though he initially sought the quashing of the FIR, the prayer was dropped as the investigation was at a preliminary stage. 

The State had argued that the petitioner who is respondent no.5 in the PIL before principal seat has acted in flagrant violation of interim order therefore, the Petitioner should have either filed the present writ petition before the Principal Seat of this Court at Jabalpur or should have filed an interlocutory application in the said writ petition thereby pointing out his grievances, therefore, this Court should not hear the matter. 

The petitioner opposed this and  argued that in the the PIL, the main relief is with regard to challenge to the order of Collector, Gwalior by which permission was granted to install the statute of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the High Court premises, whereas the dispute in the petitioner's plea is with regard to an alleged offence which has no nexus with main subject matter of the PIL. 

The State argued that in compliance with the November 12 order of the Principal Bench, the Executive Magistrate had initiated proceedings under Section 126 and 135 of BNSS against Mishra. These sections empower a Magistrate to take steps to ensure public tranquillity and peace. The Executive Magistrate had further directed Mishra to execute a bail bond for keeping the peace and maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the enquiry. 

The State argued that despite multiple opportunities, Mishra did not execute the bond. It was alleged that the petitioner had along with 50-60 advocates, had submitted a memorandum and subsequently indulged in acts including burning and trampling upon a photograph of Dr Ambedkar, raising derogatory slogans and circulating videos on social media. It was argued that the police acted swiftly and in a bona fide manner.  

Court's Observations

With respect to the alleged incident, the bench noted:

"It is not out of place to mention here that the alleged incident took place in front of the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Gwalior and Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, but it appears that the police did not take any action to prevent the commission of alleged offence, or to implement the prohibitory order issued by District Magistrate, Gwalior under Section 163 of B.N.S.S".

Regarding the prayer challenging the remand order, the bench noted that it could not examine the correctness of the remand order or the rejection of bail by the JMFC. However, it granted liberty to Mishra to approach the appropriate forum. 

The division bench also held that the writ petition in the form of Habeas Corpus was maintainable to the limited extent of examining the legality of arrest. 

Further, the court empahsized the dual responsibility of courts to enforce criminal law while preventing misuse for targeted harassment. It held that where personal liberty is at stake, and mandatory safeguards are allegedly violated, the court cannot decline to adjudicate. 

Regarding the issue of non-communication of grounds of arrest, the court noted that the case diary showed that the grounds were communicated to Dharmendra Verma, who was the guard and not a family member or arrestee. 

The court further observed that Mishra was in custody before the registration of the FIR and could not have been lawfully detained for an unreasonable period without a registered offence. Relying on the case of Mihit Rajesh Shah, the bench reiterated that the primary and mandatory requirement is communication of the grounds of arrest in writing, in a language understood by the arrestee. 

Having declared the arrest illegal, the court granted Mishra bail subject to the following conditions; 

"The Petitioner shall execute the bond or bail bond as directed by the Executive Magistrate, City Center, Gwalior under Section 126 and 135 of B.N.S.S.; That the Petitioner shall also submit his undertaking before the CJM Gwalior that he shall not act in any manner which may be prejudicial/detrimental to the maintenance of law and order as directed by Division Bench of Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.P. No.44542 of 2025". 

The court also noted that it cannot lose sight of certain facts which were submitted by learned Advocate General i.e. (i) That proceedings were initiated by Executive Magistrate, City Center, Gwalior under Sections 126,135 of B.N.S.S. and the Petitioner was directed to execute a bond or bail bond, for keeping the peace and maintaining good behavior until the conclusion of enquiry, but inspite of multiple opportunities he has not executed the bond or bail bond so far.

Petitioner's counsel submitted that not only the petitioner was directed to execute bond or bail bond but even the complainant and others were also directed to execute the bond or bail bond, but even they have not executed the bond or bail bond.

The bench however said:

"During the course of arguments it was submitted by Counsel for the Petitioner that not only the petitioner is the Ex-President of the Bar Association but has long standing in the bar. Therefore, it is expected that responsible member of the society should also act responsibly specifically when there is a specific direction by the High Court to the State Govt. to ensure maintenance of law and order...". 

The plea was allowed.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Mishra v State of Madhya Pradesh [W.P. No. 2 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 6

Click here to read/download the Order