High CourtsSingle Bench

Tahir Kolmbowala vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 23 January 2026 · Citation: (2026) 01 MP CK 1829

HON’BLE JUDGES
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 61, 111, 318(4), Information Technology Act, 2000-Section 66D · Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 58233 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

16 paragraphs · 662 words

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

1.

This is the second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) filed by the applicant seeking grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 25.07.2025 in connection with Crime No. 919/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Datia, for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 61, 111 of BNS and 66-D of IT Act.

2.

As per prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant/accused is that by threatening the complainant's daughter alleging her involvement in drug trafficking and in a money-laundering offence through her bank account, the applicant coerced the complainant's daughter into transferring an amount of Rs. 8,20,000/- from her bank account, which was subsequently credited to the account of the applicant/accused

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. The mobile number from which the fraudulent call was made to the complainant does not belong to the present applicant. The only basis for implicating the applicant in the present case is the memorandum statement of co-accused Vivek, recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Earlier application was dismissed on merits, however, there is a changed in circumstances that major offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS has been dropped at the time of framing of charges. Rest offences are triable by Magistrate and the matter is remanded to concerned Magistrate. It is further submitted that parties have settled their dispute.

4.

It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has been completed and a charge-sheet has already been filed, hence, further custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. The applicant has been in custody since 25.07.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be extended the benefit of bail.

5.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

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

7.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre- trial detention being an anathema 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 two local solvent sureties 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:-

1.

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2.

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

3.

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 or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4.

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;

5.

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

6.

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

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

8.Certified copy as per rules.