Mahendra Singh Alias Kallu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

This is first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 7.1.2026 by Police Station-Incharge Alampur, District Bhind in connection with Crime No.99/2025, registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2), 3 (5) of BNS.

According to the prosecution, the case in brief is that on 14.11.2025 at about 8:00 PM, the complainant found his father, Shivnarayan Singh Kaurav, lying dead at the place of incident, i.e., the house (kothi) of Raghavendra Kaurav at Padua Haar, Village Gangepura, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Alampur. Injuries were found on the head of the deceased, and it appeared that he had been murdered by some unknown person. On the information given by Raghavendra Kaurav, a Dehati Merg Intimation and Dehati Nalishi were recorded. On the basis of the same, Merg No. 08/2025 and Crime No. 99/2025 were registered under Section 103(1) of the BNS against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, a handwritten anonymous letter was found at the spot. On the basis of the handwriting of the said letter, the police interrogated suspect Badam Singh. On the basis of the statements of the complainant, family members of the deceased, and independent witnesses, it was revealed that the deceased Shivnarayan Singh had a land dispute with his brother-in-law Ramswaroop Kaurav. It was found that Ramswaroop had won the said case in the Court, due to which Shivratna and his family had suffered loss of a substantial portion of land. Because of this, Shivratna and Mahendra were having enmity with the deceased Shivnarayan Singh. For this reason, Shivratna and Mahendra, in conspiracy with Badam Singh Kushwah, hatched a criminal conspiracy and caused the death of Shivnarayan Singh. On the basis of the above facts, the present petitioner was found to be involved in the alleged offence.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons. Thereafter, the complainant Rampal gave different names to the police, but no action was taken. Later, only on the basis of the handwriting report and the memorandum of co-accused Badam Singh, the present petitioners Mahendra Singh and Shivratan Singh were arrested on 07.01.2026, which clearly shows a concocted and doubtful investigation. It is submitted that on 09.01.2026, the complainant himself informed the police that at the time of the incident, Mahendra Singh and Shivratan Singh were at home and had not committed the crime. When no action was taken, the complainant was compelled to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC / 175(3) BNSS. This shows that even the star witness does not support the prosecution case. It is submitted that the police have artificially created a false motive by alleging a land dispute. In fact, there was no dispute between the deceased, the complainant, and the present petitioners. The civil case was filed by Ramswaroop, in which the petitioners were also parties on the same side as the complainant. The police have deliberately ignored these documents and facts. It is submitted that the petitioners are victims of local politics and police high-handedness. Since the complainant’s family was protesting against the police for not arresting the real culprits and demanded a CID inquiry, the present petitioners have been falsely implicated as a retaliatory measure. It is submitted that no specific overt act, no weapon, and no act of assault has been attributed to the petitioners. They have been implicated only on the memorandum of co-accused, which has very weak evidentiary value. It is submitted that the ingredients of Section 103(1) BNS are not made out. There is no material to show that the petitioners shared any common intention or participated in any conspiracy to cause the death. It is submitted that there is no direct or ocular evidence against the petitioners. The entire case is based on suspicion, assumptions, and local enmity. It is further submitted that the complainant himself has exonerated the petitioners in his subsequent representations and applications. When the son of the deceased does not support the prosecution story, the custody of the petitioners becomes unjustified. Trial will take time for its conclusion. The applicant is permanent resident of District Bhind and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made out.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and 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 expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and 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 of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance 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 themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4 . 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.

Certified copy as per rules.