Chintu Singh @ Bhagwan Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J

This is the first application filed by the applicant u/S. 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.243/2025 registered at Police Station - Ambah District - Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 109, 3(5) of BNS.

As per prosecution case, the complainant Banshi Sharma, at New Parivar Hospital, Gwalior, has written a dehatinalisi to the Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar, Police Station Ambah that on 17.05.2025 at 8.00 pm, he went to a marriage of his friend's sister at Baijayanti Vatika, Porsa Chauraha, Ambah. After taking dinner, he went back at 11.25 pm before the gate of Vaijayanti Vatika. When he was standing with his friends Sonu Shukla, Vimal Upadhyay, Raju Sharma, while talking to each other, at that time, Chintu Tomar with another person, came there and due to previous enmity, he fired on him with the intention to kill. The bullet was hit on the back side of the loin, due to which blood was oozing out. After hitting him, Chintu and another person ran away from the spot. His friends Sonu Shukla, Vimal Upadhyay, Raju Sharma have taken the complainaant to the hospital. Resultantly, FIR was registered at crime No.243/2025 at Police Station - Ambah, District Morena M P for the offence punishable under sections 109, 3(5) of BNS.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant has also submitted an application through his son to the Police authorities to investigate the matter in fair manner, but there is no information from the Police about the investigation. Applicant is a permanent resident of District - Morena (M.P.). and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the applicant had fired on the complainant, due to which he got severe injuries.

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

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the rival contentions advanced by the parties and looking to the gravity of the offence and the act of the present applicant, this Court finds that the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is necessary, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

Accordingly, this application for anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.