Avdhesh @ Vikas Rajput vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C./Section 483 of BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 17.09.2025 in connection with crime No.247/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Chhawni District Gwalior for offence punishable under Section 109(1), 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) enhanced section 117(2) of BNS.

As per prosecution case, on 10.08.2025 at about 6:00 p.m., while complainant Akhilesh Rajput and his nephew Saurabh Rajput were returning home on a Bullet motorcycle (MP-07 JZ 7717) after leaving Sainik Hotel, accused Rahul Rajput, following an earlier quarrel over bringing a kanwar, arrived in a Safari vehicle (UP-93 VC 0100), hurled abuses, and deliberately rammed into them with intent to kill, causing both to fall with their motorcycle; immediately thereafter, accused Saurabh Rajput, accompanied by Vikas Rajput (present applicant), arrived in another Safari vehicle (MP-33 C 5711) and likewise attempted to run them over, after which both Rahul and Saurabh reversed their vehicles and again tried to crush them, and subsequently all three-Rahul, Saurabh, and Vikas got down, assaulted the complainant and his nephew with sticks, inflicting blunt injuries on Akhilesh's arm and waist and causing bleeding injuries to Saurabh's right leg along with multiple contusions, until the complainant's cousins Jitendra Rajput and Dinesh Rajput arrived and witnessed the incident.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated. According to the CCTV footage, the applicant was not present in the Safari vehicle when accused Saurabh allegedly attempted to run the said Safari vehicle over the injured Saurabh Rajput, infact prior to that the applicant got down from the said vehicle. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the CCTV footage that the applicant physically assaulted the complainant or his nephew. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Gwalior, there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. The applicant undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, asserting that the applicant, along with co-accused, caused injuries, including a fracture to the injured. Tata Safari car bearing registration No. UP93 BC 0100 has been seized from the possession of present applicant.

Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties and the panchnama identifying the accused from the video footage coupled with the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre- trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, without commenting on merits of the case, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before it on the dates given by the concerned Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

iii ) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv) The applicant will not commit any other offence or will not repeat the offence in future. In case, if he is found involved in the offence of same nature, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench;

v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.