IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 59808 of 2025

RAGHU SINGH

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Virendra Sharma Senior Advocate with Shri Jitendra Sharma

advocate for the applicant.

Shri Aditya Garg public prosecutor for State.

ORDER and the relevant material on record.

1. This third application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 76 of 2025 registered at Police Station- Raghvi District- Ujjain (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 352

of the BNSS, 2023. Applicant is in judicial custody since 21.06.2025.

2. Applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9.9.2025 passed in MCRC No. 36755/2025, second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer after evidence of all the eye witness before the trial court vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in MCRC no. 55116 of 2025. Thereafter, eye witnesses Chetan

Solanki (PW-3) and Rohit Mali (PW-4) have been examined.

3. Heard the arguments.

4. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary

5. 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. An unfortunate accident is converted into prosecution for murder. The tractor was not financed with the applicant, therefore, the recovery of installment from the applicant was out of question. There was no intention or reason on the part of the applicant to kill Ravindra. Learned counsel referring to evidence of eye witness, specially Chetan Solanki (PW- 3), brother of deceased, to contend that initially accidental death of Ravindra was reported. Later, it was converted into deliberate run over by the tractor by the applicant agitated by repeated demand of installments of the loan. The postmortem examination report and FSL report does not substantiate the allegation of deliberate running over the tractor as no crush injury was found. Learned counsel submits that the first installment was due on 5.5.2025, therefore, there cannot be repeated demand of installments. The prosecution is inconsistent. All the eye witness have been examined. There is no likelihood of tempering with the remaining evidence by the applicant as he is not capable to influence the Police officials and medical experts. The applicant has clean past with family roots. There is no history of evading process of law. The trial would take time to conclude. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the young applicant. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial. The alleged offence is not heinous or brutal in nature affecting society at large.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence and submits that presence of applicant on the tractor is clearly made out from the evidence on record. The death of Ravindra is clearly attributable to the alleged incident. The applicant may not be extended benefit of bail. However, after going through the case diary, he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant.

Applicant is aged around 23 years and is a labourer by profession.

7. As per the accusation on case diary, Shailendra Singh orally reported to the Police Station, Mahidpur on 7.5.2025 that about 3:30 pm in the afternoon, he, Ravindra, Rohit Mali, Chetan Solanki and Piyush were going to take installment of loan with regard to tractor bearing registration No. MP- 13-ZR-2280. When they reached near Bharat Petrol Pump at village Khedamadda, the aforesaid tractor was standing near Bharat Petrol Pump. They demanded installment of loan from Raghu Singh, the driver of tractor. Raghu abused them in filthy language. Later, the applicant deliberately run over the tractor