The court did not find sufficient grounds for bail due to ongoing evidence implicating the applicant in collective criminal responsibility.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48228 of 2025 RAMAN @ GUNGA RAJAWAT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Vikram Pippal - PL for the State.

Shri Anil Kumar Mishra with Shri Akram Khan- Advocate for complainant.

ORDER This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 5/2025 registered at Police Station - Sehore, District - Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296, 103(1), 109 and enhanced Section 115 , 117, 118(1)

and 118(2) of Bhartiya Nayay Sahinta, 2023 .

2. The allegation against the present applicant is that on 11.01.2025, when the complainant with his other family members was working in the agricultural field, at that time, the present applicant and other co-accused persons came there and with common intention to kill them, committed marpeet with the complainant. In the aforesaid incident, one Radhakrishan died due to the injuries caused by the present applicant and other co-accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL persons. Accordingly, the aforesaid offense was registered against the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Applicant is in custody since 13.01.2025. Charge sheet has already been filed after the completion of the investigation. There is also a cross case registered against the complainant party. It is a case of free fight and the applicant side is also the sufferer and victim in the aforesaid incident. In the catena of judgements, it has been held that in the cases of free fight, the individual act should be seen. It is further submitted that all the accused persons of the cross-case registered by the applicant's side, have been enlarged on bail. The only allegation against the present applicant is of causing injury by means of Lathi that too not to the deceased. The aforesaid injury is simple in nature. No blood stain has been found on the lathi seized from the possession of the present applicant. He is having no criminal antecedents. The applicant is a permanent resident of District - Shivpuri (M.P) and there is no possibility of his absconsion and tampering with the prosecution evidence. The trial will take sufficiently long time to complete. Hence, prayed for the grant of bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection by submitting that material seizure has been made from the possession of the applicant and there is sufficient material available in the case diary to implicate the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for complainant also vehemently opposed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that this is the second bail application. In the earlier round of application, the charge-sheet had already been filed at that time before, withdrawal of that first application. The first bail application was dismissed after considering all the facts and arguments and till now, there is no change of circumstances. Hence, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

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

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the parties, this court finds that the present applicant has taken active participation in the aforesaid offence. There is no material produced by the applicant to distinguish his case with other accused persons. It is also evident that Section 190 of the BNS/149 of the IPC has also been alleged against the present applicant which shows collective responsibility.

8. It is also noteworthy to mention that this is the second ba