Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6775
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J
DINESH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42471 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Shri Vinod Thakur
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence tampering risk and applicant's non-criminal background amidst matrimonial disputes.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 140(2), 140(3), and 3(5) - Grant of bail - Applicant accused of abduction and ransom demand - Bail was sought on grounds of being falsely implicated amid matrimonial discord, lack of criminal antecedent, and hardships due to incarceration; co-accused granted bail - Application allowed for the applicant's release on conditions imposed. (Paras 1, 8, 9)
(B) Bail - Criteria for granting bail - Factors such as no possibility of tampering with evidence, cooperation in trial, and socio-economic status identified as significant in deciding the bail application without commenting on merits at this stage. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was in custody since 02.06.2025 for alleged abduction of his wife amidst matrimonial disputes. The FIR initially lacked ransom allegations which were added later.
Findings of Court:
No compelling reason to continue incarceration; granting bail is justified given no prior criminal record or likelihood to flee.
Issues: Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or a threat to evidence/witnesses; impact of matrimonial discord on the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the applicant's socio-economic status and lack of past criminal activity diminish concerns for prosecution integrity and support bail eligibility.
Result: Application allowed; bail granted to the applicant upon fulfilling conditions.
2. Heard the arguments.
3. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and the relevant material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence due to matrimonial discord with his wife Kali. Applicant Dinesh is husband of the abductee/complainant Kali. Initially, there was no allegation of demand of ransom money in the FIR. It was later added to increase the gravity of Signature Not Verified allegations. The final report has been submitted on completion of investigation. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence by the applicant for the reason that he is labourer and is not capable to influence the witness. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant and the dependent family members. Leaned counsel submits that co-accused Rakesh and Ramlal @ Rama have been extended benefit of bail vide orders dated 27.06.2025, passed in M.Cr.C. No.25864 of 2025 and order dated 10.09.2025, passed in M.Cr.C. No.29625 of 2025 respectively.
Applicant is ready to cooperate in trial.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. However, after going through the case diary, he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant. 6 . According to material available on case diary, Kali Bai was prosecuting maintenance case at Sailana Court. Kali Bai went to attend hearing on 27.05.2025 alongwith her mother Kantubai and her brother Laxman. When they were returning from the Court, Dinesh and his associates intercepted their motorcycle and forcefully abducted Kalibai. Dinesh took Kalibai forcefully on his motorcycle. Kalibai did not return for three days so her brother Laxman lodged FIR at Police Station - Shivgarh, District Ratlam. The Police Station Shivgarh registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 140 (3) of BNS, 2023. Later, prosecution for offence punishable under Section 140 (2) and 3(5) of BNS was added on allegation that accused had demanded Rs.5.00 Lakhs for release of Kalibai. The final report was submitted on completion of investigation. The applicant was arrested on 02.06.2025. The applicant is in custody ever since. Prima facie, the incident appears to be an offshoot of pending litigation between the parties regarding matrimonial dispute. The veracity of prosecution and the complicity of the applicant will be determined after evidence in the trial.
Signature Not Verified
7. As informed, the applicant is aged around 27 years and is in private service of MPEB. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of any criminal antecedent-, considering the socio-economic status of the applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses by the applicant. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue incarceration of the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are recorded for present application only.
8. Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of the case, in the light of aforestated facts, but without commenting on the merits, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the application is allowed. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant- Dinesh shall be released on bail in connection with Crime as mentioned in first paragraph of this order, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for compliance with the following conditions : (For convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of bail are also reproduced in Hindi as under):-
(1) Applicant shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the concerned court;
(1) आवेदक संबंिधत (cid:12)यायालय के िनद(cid:17)शानुसा
