IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR (PRAVENDRA LODHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 02-02-2026 Shri Brajesh Kumar Rajak - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Rohit Pandey - Advocate for the Objector.

Shri Ramji Pandey - G.A. for the respondent/State.

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section

439 of Cr.P.C./Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.581/2025 registered at Police Station -Barela, District Jabalpur for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 309(6), 331(8) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is in jail since 09.09.2025, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has submitted that the material against the applicant as per the case of the prosecution is by Memorandum of the applicant and the co-accused, and so- called by recovery of the battery, diesel and motor cycle, when the applicant and the co-accused went to commit the crime in question. He has submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 105 and 185 of BNSS, compliance has not been made, as no videography is carried out of the same Panchnama.

In support of his submission he has relied on the Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40989/2025 in case of Shadab Vs. State of U.P., and has submitted for considering these aspects. He has submitted that the only material which can be available with the prosecution is statement of accused and co-accused, and therefore, considering the age of the applicant - about 21 years, his case may be considered for consideration of grant of bail.

3. Counsel for the State has opposed the submission at the Bar and has submitted that there is no videography, but it itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, as proper Panchnama is drawn on the recovery of the vehicle and other material as indicated in the Memorandum. He has further submitted that there are two antecedents against the present applicant and so also the case of the applicant is not required to be considered.

4. The counsel for the applicant has objected to the submission by saying that in charge-sheet, there is no mention about any antecedent and he has further submitted that it is strange that the Police has informed the complainant for the present matter, as the Counsel for the complainant is opposing the present bail application, but there is no requirement to inform the complainant, as there is no special offence registered under any special Act, and that it is necessary to refer to the Judgment passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40989/2025 by Allahabad High Court, the relevant Paragraphs of which are reproduced as under:-

"12. From the perusal of the record of this case, it is clear that police has not conducted any videography of the recovery of motor cycles from the applicant or preparation of list of seized motor cycles, though, same is mandatory as per Section 105 of BNSS and uploading the videography on the portal of E-Sakshya is also necessary but the police has not complied the aforesaid provision of BNSS. This fact shows not only the negligence but arbitrariness on the part of police which creates doubt over the prosecution story regarding the recovery of seized articles.

13. Section 105 BNSS prescribes the process of videography regarding search of a place or taking possession of any property or articles including the preparation of list of all things seized to prevent the plantation of false recovery by certain police officials and also create legal material for the fair trial. Section 105 BNSS is being quoted as under:

105. Recording of search and seizure through audio- video electronic means.—The process of conducting search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under this Chapter or under Section 185, including preparation of the list of all things seized in the course of such search and seizure and signing of