High CourtsSingle Bench

Raunak Mishra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 27 September 2025 · Citation: (2025) 09 MP CK 0922

HON’BLE JUDGES
Himanshu Joshi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 480(3), 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 302(2), 324(4) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 303(2), 324(4)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 44751 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

11 paragraphs · 439 words

Himanshu Joshi , J

1.

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.453/2025 registered at Police Station - Kotwali, District - Anuppur for the offence punishable under Sections 302(2) and 324(4) of BNS, 2023. Applicant is in custody since 16.09.2025.

2.

As per the prosecution story, on 09.09. 2025, at around 11.00 pm, he parked his red coloured Swift VDI car bearing registration number MP-65-C-1503 on the roadside in front of the Union Bank and went inside the home. When he woke up at around 8.00 am, he found that the driver's side glass of his car broken. The new spare tyre, worth Rs 5000, kept in the rear seat was missing and had been stolen by an unknown thief, On the basis of the above information, during the investigation, the Kotwali Police Station, Anuppur registered a case No. 453/2025 under sections 303(2), 324(4) of the IPC and during the investigation it was found that the accused had broken the windshield of 'the car owned by the complainant and stolen its new spare tyre.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant is aged about 22 years. The applicant has nothing to do with the said theft. Trial will take time to be concluded, hence, the applicant be released on bail.

3.

Learned counsel for State has opposed the bail application and has submitted that applicant has one criminal record, therefore, no case of bail is made out. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.

5.

Looking to the factual aspect of the case coupled with the fact that trial will take time to be concluded, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

6.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on her 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 concerned for her appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during pendency of trial.

7.

It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 480(3) of BNSS.

8.

Accordingly, Misc. Criminal Case stands disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.