Gajraj Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

This is the fourth bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) filed by the applicant seeking grant of bail. His earlier bail application was disposed of vide order dated 22.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.38329 of 2025 by this Court.

The applicant has been arrested on 19.10.2024 in connection with Crime No. 100/2024 registered at Police Station Bhaguvapura, District Datia, for offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) added Section 103(1) of BNS.

As per proseuction case, on 17.10.2024, the complainant, Man Singh Solanki, appeared at the Police Chowki Bhaguwapura and lodged a written report stating that on 16.10.2024, at about 10:00 p.m., he returned to his house from his tea stall at Bhaguwapura Tiraha. After having his meal, he laid down in his room. At that time, his elder brother, Gajraj alias Gurukul Solanki, came home in an intoxicated condition and falsely accused him by saying, “You have stolen my four thousand rupees,” and started hurling filthy abuses at him. When the complainant objected to the abuses, Gajraj assaulted him with a stick kept in the room, as a result of which he sustained multiple minor injuries on different parts of his body. Upon hearing his cries, his sister-in-law, Ramkumari, who was sleeping nearby, arrived and intervened to stop the assault. At that time, Gajraj alias Gurukul Solanki threatened that if a report was lodged at the police station, he would kill him. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 100/2024 was registered at Police Chowki Bhaguwapura against the accused Gajraj alias Gurukul under Sections 296, 115(2), and 351(2) of the BNS, and the case was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, the FIR, inquest intimation, original inquest intimation, Safina form, inquest panchnama, dead body receipt, spot map, MLC report, post-mortem report, query report, and statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested, and the stick used in the incident was seized. As per the post-mortem report, the medical expert opined that the cause of death in this case was head injury, and evidence of other ante-mortem injuries along with rail-pattern contusions were present over the body. Statements of independent witnesses also revealed that the accused Gajraj alias Gulgul Solanki had brutally assaulted Man Singh alias Kakka, resulting in his death. After completion of the entire investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before the Court against the accused Gajraj alias Gulgul under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), and with the addition of Section 103(1) of the BNS.

Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter and is innocent. It is pertinent to note that the deceased and the applicant are brothers. One of the eye-witnesses, Shivkumari @ Rajkumari, who is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of both the deceased and the applicant, was examined as PW-2 on 30.10.2025 and has not supported the prosecution story, having turned hostile. Similarly, Rahul, the nephew of the deceased, was examined as PW-1 on 16.09.2025 and has also not supported the prosecution case, turning hostile. Further, the MLC report indicates that the injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature and not fatal. The autopsy report reveals that no injuries were sustained on the vital parts of the deceased. Although the postmortem report opined the cause of death as head injury, examination of the postmortem findings shows that no injury was observed on the head of the deceased. It is submitted that the charge-sheet in this matter has already been filed, and therefore, further custodial interrogation of the applicant is no more required. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Datia, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution witnesses. Thus, it is prayed that benefit of bail be extended to the applicant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection, contending that in the present case, the deceased himself had lodged the FIR. It was further submitted that in his statement, the deceased stated that the present applicant had assaulted him with a wooden stick (Danda). The post-mortem report revealed a total of 13 injuries on the body of the deceased. However, learned counsel for the State fairly conceded that no injury was found on the head of the deceased. It was also highlighted that the applicant has criminal antecedents of nine criminal cases, one of which is of similar nature.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties 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 bail 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:-

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

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

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;

The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically, without further reference to the Bench;

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

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.