Raghvendra Pandey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.408/2025 registered at Police Station - Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 118(3), 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of B.N.S.

As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that he committed marpeet with the complainant and cause grievous injury. On the basis of which, offence has been registered against the applicant under the aforesaid sections.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Present applicant is the practitioner Lawyer and he is practicing in Kotma Court. On the date of incident, applicant was in the Court premises of Kotma and President of Bar

Association Kotma has also given a letter to the police that on the date of incident, present applicant was in the court premises which can be checked through CCTV footage. It is submitted that there was civil dispute between the applicant and complaiant. Civil suit was decreed in favour of father of applicant and possession of the house was given to him on 23.07.2025, but thereafter, complainant threatened the applicant and his father to dispossess the property otherwise he will falsely implicate them. Applicant has given complainants to the police on 25.07.2025 and 07.08.2025. It is further submitted that the dispute took place between both the parties due to possession of house, in that dispute, they sustained injuries, therefore, on the same day i.e. 10.09.2025 at about 5:00 pm, father of applicant lodged the complaint against the complainant, but police is not taking any action against him. On the same day, complainant has also lodged the present FIR at about 5:30 pm, in which present applicant was falsely implicated. It is further submitted the complainant was the Driver in Police Station, Kotma, therefore, Kotma Police favoured the complainant, due to which, present applicant was falsely implicated. There is no criminal record of applicant. There is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/State has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and prayed for its rejection.

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.

Applicant shall abide by the following conditions under Section 480 (2) of BNSS:-

(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 BNSS.

Certified copy as per rules.