Kuldeep And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

The applicants No.1 to 3, namely, Kuldeep, Ramswaroop and Bal Singh respectively have filed this first bail application under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail. They apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.389/2025 registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296-A, 351(3), 190, 191(3), 118, 118(2) of BNS.

According to the prosecution, the injured Satendra Kushwah, while admitted at J.H. Hospital, gave a statement (Dehati Nalishi) that on 09.11.2025, at around 02:10 AM, he was returning to his village Thanupura. As soon as he reached near his house and got down from the vehicle, Ramendra Singh Kushwah, Shailendra @ Shailu Rajawat and three others armed with weapons, came from behind and started assaulting him with the butt of a gun while abusing him. They hit him below the knees, on the chest, chin, and face with the butt of the gun and with a pistol, due to which he sustained injuries on his chest and face. The incident was witnessed by his wife Mini Singh and neighbour Kamal Singh. While leaving, the accused were saying that if he caused trouble in the future, they would kill him. On the basis of this report, alleged crime was registered against the accused persons.

Learned counsels for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case owing to prior enmity and local rivalry. It is argued that the allegations made in the Dehati Nalishi do not attribute any specific overt act to these applicants. The complainant has merely stated that “three others” were present along with the named accused persons, but no distinct role, weapon, or act of assault has been assigned to applicants. Thus, the allegations against them are wholly omnibus, vague, and lacking in specificity. It is further submitted that, as per the panchanama and the statements of the injured witness and other witnesses recorded during investigation, the present applicants have not been identified as the assailants. This significantly weakens the prosecution story insofar as these applicants are concerned. It is also pointed out that co-accused Bharat Singh, who was attributed a similar and even more proximate role according to the FIR, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, thereby entitling the present applicants to parity in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail. It is further argued that the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature as per the preliminary medical opinion, which further reduces the seriousness of the alleged offence so far as these applicants are concerned. It is further submitted that the ingredients of the offences invoked under the BNS are not satisfied vis-à-vis applicants No.1 to 3, and their arrest is wholly unwarranted. The applicants are permanent residents of District Gwalior, have deep roots in society, and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. They are cooperating with the investigation. The applicants are ready and willing to comply with any conditions imposed by this Court. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the applicants be granted anticipatory bail, especially in light of the non-identification during investigation and the parity arising from the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused Bharat Singh.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature and the complainant sustained injuries due to an assault carried out by a group of accused persons armed with deadly weapons, and the applicants are part of the said unlawful assembly. The presence of the applicants at the spot is alleged in the Dehati Nalishi, and the prosecution contends that their role cannot be ruled out at this stage. It is further submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage, and custodial interrogation may be necessary to ascertain the involvement of all persons named and unnamed in the incident. It is further submitted that merely because co-accused Bharat Singh has been granted anticipatory bail, the same cannot automatically entitle the present applicants to parity, as the role and involvement of each accused must be assessed independently. It is argued that the non-identification of the applicants during panchanama or in certain statements cannot be treated as conclusive at the anticipatory bail stage, as further investigation is likely to shed more light on their participation.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the overall facts and cirrcumstances of the case, as well as the fact that the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the applicants fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer, subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants:-

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

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

(iii) The applicants will not indulge themselves 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 applicants shall not commit any offence during the period of bail;

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

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

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

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

Certified copy as per rules.