Satish Meena vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

The applicant has filed this first application under Section 482 of BNSS/438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. He apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.127 of 2025 registered at Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), 118(1), 119(1) and 119(2) of BNS, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant, Raja Meena, son of Hemraj Meena, aged 23, resident of village Fazalpur, Police Station Raghogarh, along with the injured persons Ranchhod Meena, Arvind Meena, Jitendra Meena, and his mother Guddi Bai Meena, came to the police station and lodged a report alleging that on 27.04.2025, at around 8:00 AM, he and his mother Guddi Bai were working in their field. There were trees standing on their portion of the land and an onion crop was growing in the field. At that time, four persons from their village-Bankat Meena, Satish Meena (applicant), Maya Bai, and Manju Meena-started cutting the trees on their field. When he and his mother objected to the cutting of the trees, all four of them began verbally abusing them. Then his uncle Ranchhod Meena, his uncle's son Arvind Meena, and his brother Jitendra Meena also came to the spot. The same four people verbally abused them as well. When they refused to tolerate the abuse, Bankat, Satish (applicant), Maya Bai, and Manju Meena physically assaulted his mother Guddi Bai by slapping her, causing bruises on both cheeks and her back.

When Raja Meena tried to protect his mother, Satish Meena (applicant) hit him with sticks, causing bruises on his left hand, fingers, and elbow. Ranchhod Meena, Arvind Meena, and Jitendra Meena came to help, but they were also attacked with sticks and rods, which caused injuries on Ranchhod Meena's head, nose, and both hands. Arvind Meena sustained injuries on his left shoulder and multiple bruises on his back, with bleeding. Jitendra Meena had swelling on his left hand fingers. Pawan Meena, Gazendra Meena, and Munna Meena intervened and witnessed the incident. As they left, the attackers threatened that if anyone stopped them from cutting trees in the future, they would kill them. Based on the complainant's report, alleged crime was registered against the applicant and investigation was initiated. During the investigation, a site plan was prepared under the guidance of the complainant, Raja Meena. Separate statements were recorded from the complainant and witnesses-Ranchhod Meena, Jitendra Meena, Arvind Meena, and Guddi Bai Meena-who all confirmed the incident. Based on these statements, Section 119(1) of the B.N.S. Act was added to the case. Medical reports (MLC) for Arvind Meena, Guddi Bai Meena, Jitendra Meena, Raja Meena, and Ranchhod Meena were obtained from CHC Raghogarh. Guddi Bai, Jitendra, and Ranchhod Meena were found to have sustained simple injuries and Arvind Meena had object-hard and sharp injuries, which fell under section 118(1) B.N.S., and this section was added to the case. Raja Meena's X-ray showed a fracture, falling under section 119(2) B.N.S., which was also added to the case.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, as the applicant was not present at the alleged place and time in the manner suggested, and there is no direct evidence to implicate him in the incident. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the complainant and other alleged victims are simple in nature. The medical reports (MLC) of the injured persons, including the complainant, clearly indicate that the injuries were minor and do not amount to grievous hurt as defined under the relevant provisions. The applicant is not alleged to have caused any serious or life-threatening injury. It is further submitted that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses contain discrepancies and contradictions. The entire case appears to be motivated by personal animosity and local enmity, and the applicant has been falsely roped into the allegations. No independent or corroborative evidence exists to substantiate the claims against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the same village and has strong family and community ties. He is neither likely to abscond nor to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. He is a law-abiding citizen with no previous criminal record. The applicant has cooperated fully with the investigation so far and is willing to continue to do so under any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, prayer for anticipatory bail is made.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and prays for its rejection by submitting that the allegations are serious in nature and custodial interrogation may be required.

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

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to allow this application. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed;

(ii) The applicant shall not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts to the Court or to the police;

(iii) The applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of bail;

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court/Police Station concerned for compliance. Certified copy as per rules.