High CourtsSingle Bench

Nikki vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 31 December 2025 · Citation: (2025) 12 MP CK 1922

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 61, 61(2), 140(3), 310(2), 312, 317(3), 319(2) · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 60446 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

14 paragraphs · 457 words

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J

1.

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with FIR / Crime No.201/2025 registered at Police Station - Sanyogitaganj, District - Indore for commission of offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 140(3), 312, 317(3), 319(2), 61, 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The applicant is in custody since 19.06.2025.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant at the outset submits that the case of the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused - Akash Sisodiya, Hemant Rajpoot & Vivek Poneya, who have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 22.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.59538 of 2025, Gaurav who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.58334 of 2025, Vinod Kumar who has been granted bail vide order dated 11.12.2025 and Pushpendra @ Vicky Yadav who has been granted bail vide order dated 60154 of 2025. Hence, maintaining the principle of parity, the present applicant be also given similar benefit.

3.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State opposed the application, however, the factum of parity has not been disputed.

4.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case so also the fact that co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion 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.

5.

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/her;

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

iii) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself 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;

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused;

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

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

6.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.