Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7711
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J
SALMAN ALI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45581 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Zishan Khan
For the Respondents: Shri Amit Raval, Ms. Archana Maheshwari
The court emphasizes that mere recovery of an alleged weapon without supportive eyewitness testimony is insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:This judgment concerns the grant of bail to the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 in relation to Crime No. 485/2024. The applicant, Salman Ali, argues that he is falsely implicated as key eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution. The court finds no compelling evidence against him. Issues include the assessment of evidence and personal liberty. The court's reasoning emphasizes the lack of criminal antecedents and the applicant's socio-economic background. The application is thus granted, allowing bail under specified conditions.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45581 of 2025 SALMAN ALI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:
Shri Zishan Khan advocate for the applicant. Shri Amit Raval public prosecutor for State.
Ms. Archana Maheshwari advocate for objector.
ORDER This second application has been filed by the applicant under Section
483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 485/2024 registered at Police Station - Mahidpur District Ujjain(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 103(1),3(5),61(2), 238 of The BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act . The applicant is in custody since 22.10.2024. First bail application was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9311 of 2025. Thereafter, the prosecution witness Abdul (PW-1) and Soyab (PW-2) have been examined.
Heard the arguments.
Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and the relevant material on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence merely on statements of two eye witness. Abdul (PW- 1) and Soyab (PW-2), the eye witness of the incident, did not support the prosecution. Allegedly, one knife was recovered at the instance of applicant from the house of co-accused Sohail. The blood group on the knife was not determined by serologist report. The eye witness did not support the prosecution regarding use of knife by the applicant. Learned counsel referring to judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) 3 SCC 481 contends that mere alleged recovery of blood-stained weapon would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder. The alleged motive of crime can not be proved by prosecution as sister of Sohaib was not cited as a witness by the prosecution. The fate of prosecution is apparent. There is no likelihood of tampering with remaining evidence by the applicant as the material prosecution witness have been examined. The jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State, ably assisted by counsel for the objector, opposed the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. However, he fairly submits that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant.
According to the material available on case diary, Mohseen informed the police station Mahidpur that on 21.10.2024, Majju came to his house around 8:00 in the night and told him that some unknown assailants had assaulted Bablu with knife. Aman Pathan and Imran had taken Bablu for Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR treatment to Government Hospital Mahidpur. The medical officer has declared Bablu dead. Some unknown assailants have killed Bablu. On such allegations, the Police Station Mahidpur registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 against unknown offender. Soyab and Abdul Vahab informed that they had seen Sohail, Salman, Amir, Dharmendra, Harsh Yadav assaulting Bablu @ Abdul Rahman with knife in the night of 21.10.2024 at Ramleela Maidan. Applicant Salman was apprehended on 22.10.2024. A knife was recovered from the house of Sohail on information given by Salman. The knife was forwarded for examination by serology expert. The report of serologist revealed that knife recovered at the instance of Salman has traces of human blood but the blood group could not be determined. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the trial. The fact remains that both the independent eye witness did not support the prosecution and exonerated the applicant.
As informed, the applicant is aged 19 years. He is labourer by profession and survives
