High CourtsSingle Bench

Ladoo Ramgopal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 16 September 2025 · Citation: (2025) 09 MP CK 1096

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 480(2), 480(3), 482 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 103, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 125, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 351, 351(3)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 42217 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

12 paragraphs · 483 words

Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J

1.

This is the first application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in relation to Crime No.248/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Damoh (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 118(1), 118(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351, 190, 351(3), 125 & 103 of B.N.S.

2.

2. As per the prosecution story, the allegation against present applicant is that he alongwith co-accused persons assembled at the place of incident and abused and committed marpeet with the injured persons with stick and kick and fists on the issue of commission regarding liquor. During treatment, one of the injured Javed died. Therefore, offence has been registered against the present applicant and co-accused persons under the aforesaid sections.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in this case initially two persons namely Chandan Singh and Javed s/o Nijam were injured. The case was registered. Present applicant was also released on bail by Trial Court. After two months of the incident, Javed died, therefore Section 103 of B.N.S. was added. It is further submitted that there is no document in the case which will suggest that deceased was died due to injury caused during the incident. It is further submitted that there is no allegation neither in the FIR nor in the statement that present applicant has caused injury to the deceased but police wants to arrest the applicant. The conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the anticipatory bail application and prayed for it's rejection.

5.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is allowed. It is directed that if the applicant is arrested by the police then he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.

6.

Applicant shall abide by the following conditions under Section 480(2) of Cr.P.C:-

(a) Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

(b) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to complainant or witnesses;

(c) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(d) He shall not commit similar offence, of which, he is accused or suspected.

(e) He will further abide by the condition enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 480 of the Cr.P.C. Certified copy as per rules.