IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51182 of 2025 HARISHANKAR DIXIT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Satyapal Chadhar - G.A. for the respondent/State.

Shri Ankit Chourasia- Advocate for the objector.

ORDER This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.187/2025 registered at Police Station - Hata, District Damoh (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108 and 61(2) of BNS. The applicant has been arrested on

04.06.2025.

2. Prosecution story in brief is that applicant as well as co-accused person committed murder of deceased. Therefore, the offence has been registered against the present applicant under the aforesaid section.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 04.06.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no suicide note, and nothing has been recovered from the present applicant.

There is no conversation between the deceased and present applicant. It is further submitted that in a mobile conversation, Rajesh Tripathi informed Mukesh that four persons had robbed him. On receiving this information, he went to the spot and found that the condition of Rajesh Tripathi was not good. It is further submitted that statement of Mukesh Tripathi was recorded on 16.05.2025 and the statements of Sharad, Archana and Shriram Pathak were recorded on 17.05.2025, in which nothing was stated against present applicant. Later on, their supplementary statements were recorded by police on 03.06.2025. It is also submitted that prior to this, the accused Jitendra Bhatt was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded on 19.10.2025, in which applicant Harishankar Dixit was shown only as a witness until then, his name has not been mentioned by the co-accused. It is further submitted that at a later stage, the screenshot produced before the police was already in their possession. The screen shot was given on 05.07.2025, whereas mobile phone had already been seized by the police on 16.05.2025. However, the screen shot contains no material against the present applicant. It is further submitted that in January 2025, a complaint had already been made in the department alleging that deceased used to forge documents and an inquiry was initiated in the department against the deceased. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The conclusion of the trial will take considerable time. Therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for objector as well as learned counsel for the respondent/State have submitted there was a whatsapp chat between the deceased and co-accused Jitendra Bhatt, which reveals that both accused were blackmailing the deceased. It is further submitted that Mukesh Tripathi and Sharad Tripathi in their statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, specifically described the role of the both accused person and stated that deceased Rajesh Tripathi has given Rs. 2,50,000/- to the applicant before them. Applicant being an advocate involved in the case of blackmailing. It is also submitted that applicant and co-accused person were continuously blackmailing the deceased, and due to which, he committed suicide. After the suicide, applicant Harishankar Dixit has talked Mukesh Tripathi on mobile phone and threatened him not to mention his name in the case. In this regard he has informed police and pen drive has been seized. Hence, the applicant does not deserve grant of bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as allegation levelled against the applicant, this court is not incli