SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7087

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J
VIKAS TYAGI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40171 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Prabal Pratap Singh Solanki
For the Respondents: Shri Harish Sharma, Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma

Presence in an unlawful assembly elicits vicarious liability under IPC sections despite absence of direct action.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 149, 302, 294, 307, 147, 148, 120-B - Arms Act - Sections 25, 27 - Bail application - Applicant charged in relation to triple murder during political rivalry - Fatal injuries established solely by firearms, applicant accused as part of unlawful assembly without direct act - Denied bail on grounds of gravity of the situation, risk of witness intimidation. (Paras 15, 20, 25)

(B) Unlawful assembly - Vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC - The presence in the assembly is sufficient for liability, despite absence of direct overt act. (Paras 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested following a broad daylight incident resulting in the death of three individuals, reflecting serious political rivalry.

Findings of Court:
The court denied the bail hearing the gravity and brutality of the crime alongside the thorough examination of the applicant's claims.

Issues: The main issues were the applicant’s alleged involvement in murder, vicarious liability, and the conversation surrounding previous co-accused’s bail status.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that mere presence in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability and applicant is not entitled to bail considering serious risks posed.

Result: Application for regular bail is dismissed.

ORDER This is the first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) filed for grant of bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 16.01.2023 by Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind in connection with Crime No.10 of 2023 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 302 , 294, 307, 147, 148, 149 & 120-B of IPC and Sections

25, 27 of the Arms Act .

As per prosecution story, the complainant Manoj alias Bunty Tyagi lodged a report at the police station alleging that on 15.01.2023, at about 10:00 a.m., he along with his father Hakim Prasad Tyagi, Pinku Tyagi, Gullu alias Anuj Tyagi, Ravi Tyagi, and Lokesh Tyagi were on their way to their agricultural fields. When they reached near the Panchayat Bhawan, they were confronted by Nishant alias Bunty, Narendra, Saurabh, Anoop, Rahul (each Signature Not Verified armed with rifles), Premsagar, Vivek, Jitendra, Ramanand (armed with Adhiya guns), Ramdatt, Gaurav, Prashant (armed with country-made pistols), Anil and Vikas (armed with axes), Shivsagar (armed with a hatchet), along with three other unknown persons who were also carrying weapons. All of them stopped the complainant’s party and, on account of political rivalry arising from the Sarpanch Elections, Nishant alias Bunty along with others, acting in concert, obstructed their path, abused them in filthy language, and then opened fire. Nishant alias Bunty fired from his gun at the complainant’s father, hitting him in the chest. Narendra Tyagi fired the second shot, hitting his father’s arm. Saurabh Tyagi fired the third shot, which struck his father’s back, causing him to fall to the ground. Immediately thereafter, Rahul Tyagi fired a shot at Pinku Tyagi, hitting him in the abdomen, causing him to collapse on the spot. Then, Anoop Tyagi fired a shot at Gullu alias Anuj Tyagi, striking him in the chest, as a result of which he too fell down. At that moment, the complainant along with Ravi and Lokesh fled to save their lives and hide themselves in a mustard field. Due to the gunshots fired by the accused persons, Hakim Prasad, Pinku, and Anuj alias Gullu succumbed to injuries and died on the spot.

On the basis of the complainant’s report, a case was registered against the accused persons under Sections 302 , 307, 294, 147, 148, 149 of IPC , and investigation commenced. During investigation, offences under Sections 25 , 27 of the Arms Act and 120-B IPC were added. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before this Court that Signature Not Verified the applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.01.2023. He has thus remained behind bars for more than two years and eight months without the conclusion of trial. It is further submitted that the prosecution’s own case, as reflected in the FIR, case diary, and testimonies before the trial court, is that the fatal injuries were inflicted solely by firearms. The three deceased persons, namely, Hakim Prasad Tyagi, Pinku Tyagi, and Gullu @ Anuj Tyagi, all sustained gunshot injuries of .315 bore. It is further submitted that the allegation against the present applicant is confined to his mere presence in the unlawful assembly while being allegedly armed with an axe (farsa). No prosecution witness has attributed any specific act of assault by the applicant, nor is there any medical evidence showing injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Hence, the applicant’s implication rests only on the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC , without any direct overt act. It is further submitted that the charge sheet was filed on 15.01.2023, and the statements of all material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and injured eyewitnesses, have already been recorded. Consequently, there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation, and the possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses does not arise. It is further submitted that in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top