High CourtsSingle Bench

Girraj Gurjar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 December 2025 · Citation: (2025) 12 MP CK 1952

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 147, 148, 149, 294, 302, 307, 325, 395, 397
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 56804 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 809 words

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J

1.

This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail relating to Crime No.467/2021 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 325, 395, 397, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of BNS.

2.

In brief, prosecution case is that on 24.07.2021 at 9.10 am complainant Vishnu lodged a Dehatinalishi with Assistant sub Inspector Laxman Singh of Police Station Civil Line Morena against Ramdeen and co-accused Laxman, Jairam, Dhurv, Girraj, Jagdeesh, present applicant/accused Satte @ Satyabhan, Raghuraj and one Ramniwas alleging that in the morning at 5.00 am they were sleeping outside the house, due to previous enmity, co-accused Ramdeen along with Laxman, Jairam, Jagdeesh, Girraj- applicant/accused, Satte @ Satyabhan, Raghuraj and Ramniwas having danda and gun in their hands came near them and started abusing his father with filthy languages, when his father objected then co-accused Laxman with the intention to kill his brother Radhe fired on him bullet hit on his right hand. Thereafter, co-accused Jairam fired with gun on his father which bullet hit on right leg. Thereafter, co-accused Dhurv fired on his father. Accused Laxman, Jairam and Dhruv also fired on him and his father, due to which, they got injuries. Thereafter Girraj, Jagdish, Ramdeen and present applicant-Satte @ Satyabhan Gurjar, Raghuraj Gurjar and Ramniwas Gurjar assaulted the complainant and his father and brother and one Ramhari with Lathi. Complainant and Ramhari also sustained gunshot injury. When they cried, Tikaram and Banti and other fellow came over there. They saw the incident. Then accused persons went away from the place by taking their licencee gun. They by tractor reached District Hospital Morena. Their treatment is going on. On his report, dehati nalishi 307, 323, 294, 147, 148, 149 was recorded. Thereafter, on the basis of dehati nalishi FIR at police station Civil Line Morena bearing crime No.467/2021 under aforesaid sections was registered. During treatment Rajman and Radhe died. Merg was registered.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He is under custody since 20.03.2025. Supplimentary charge-sheet has already been filed against the applicant. It is further submitted that Complainant Vishnu (PW/2) and eye witness Ram Hari Gurjar (PW/1) have been examined before the Trial Court and they have stated in their statements that the alleged assault was done by unknown persons. They have, therefore, turned hostile. They specifically denied in their cross-examination that the present applicant and other co-accused persons fired upon the deceased Radhe and Rajman. It is further submitted that co-accused persons Raghuraj Gurjar, Satte @ Satybhan Singh Gurjar, Ramdeen Gurjar, Dhruv Gurjar, and Jayram Gurjar have already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. No custodial interrogation is required. He is ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court. Conclusion of trial will take time. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

5.

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

6.

Having heard the rival submissions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the 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/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court.

7.

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 them 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 they are 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.

8.

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

Certified copy as per rules.