Rakesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

This is the third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of bail. The applicant was arrested on 24.06.2023 by Police Station Mungawali, District Ashoknagar, in connection with Crime No. 214 of 2023, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 294, 323, and 34 of the IPC. His earlier application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025, as there was no change in circumstances in the matter except for the period of custody.

As per prosecution story, on 23.06.2023, the complainant Shivraj Mongia was admitted to Mungawali Hospital and lodged a report to the effect that he resides in Village Sindhiagadh and is an agriculturist. For about 30 years, the land in Village Sindhiagadh has been in the name of his grandmother Mayabai, over which there has been an ongoing dispute with Arjun Mongia. On 23.06.2023, the land was demarcated by the Patwari.

After the demarcation was completed and everyone had left, the complainant and Nathusingh were returning home. As they reached in front of Arjun Mongia’s house, Kallibai, Arjun Mongia’s wife, came out and started verbally abusing them with obscene language. At that time, Gaurishankar came with an iron rod, Arjun Singh with a stick, and Rakesh (present applicant) also arrived. Rakesh (present applicant) grabbed the complainant’s uncle, Nathusingh, and Gaurishankar struck him on the head with the iron rod, causing a head injury and bleeding, and Nathusingh fell to the ground. When the complainant’s father Narayan Singh intervened to save him, Arjun Singh hit him with a stick, causing a head injury with bleeding and a bruise near his right elbow. When the complainant’s mother Laxmibai came to protect them, Rakesh (present applicant) assaulted her as well, resulting in bodily injuries. Due to the assault by the accused, the complainant’s uncle Nathusingh died. Present at the scene were Ashok and Vishna Mongia, who witnessed the incident. Based on the complainant’s report, alleged crime was registered aginst the accused. During investigation, the body of the deceased Nathusingh Mongia was examined, medical examinations of the injured were conducted, and the site plan of the incident was prepared. Statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, which revealed that the incident was committed by Arjun Mongia, Rakesh Mongia (present applicant), co-accused Gaurishankar Mongia, and Kallibai alias Ajudyabai.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Rakesh Mongia has been falsely implicated due to an old land dispute. It was contended that the applicant had no direct role in causing the death of Nathusingh Mongia.

While he may have been present, he did not participate in the fatal assault nor inflict injuries that led to the death. It was further argued that the prosecution has not produced any concrete or independent evidence directly linking the applicant to the offence under Section 302 IPC, and mere presence at the scene cannot establish liability for murder. Reliance on Section 34 IPC is misplaced, as there is no evidence of a shared common intention to commit murder. At most, the applicant’s alleged actions were minor or defensive and insufficient to attract Section 302 IPC. It is also submitted that according to the prosecution story, the fatal blow was inflicted by co-accused Gaurishankar with an iron rod, whereas the applicant is only alleged to have caused simple injuries with a lathi. The incident allegedly occurred suddenly in the heat of the moment after a land dispute, without any premeditation or intention on the part of the applicant to cause death. Six material witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court. It was further pointed out that co-accused Arjun Singh, who is in custody since 29.06.2023, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2026. The applicant has been in custody since 24.06.2023, the investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet has been filed. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The trial will take its own course, and the applicant is ready and willing to comply with any conditions imposed by this Court. On these grounds, the applicant prayed for grant of bail.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offence and material on record, and prayed for its rejection.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of custody already undergone by the applicant, the completion of investigation, and the fact that trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, as well as recognizing that prolonged pre-trial detention is inimical 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, 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 himself 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 tor to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

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.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per Rules.