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

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51897 of 2025 DEEP SHUKLA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Ajay Pal Singh - Advocate for applicant.

Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for State.

Shri Abhishek Pandey - Advocate for the objector.

Reserved on : 30.01.2025. Pronounced on : 06.02.2026.

ORDER This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.477/2025 registered at Police Station - Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 209, 109, 351(3), 309(6) and 3(5) of BNS.

Applicant is in detention since 26.10.2025.

2. As per prosecution story, it is alleged that applicant along with other co-accused persons assaulted and caused grievous injury to the injured. On the basis of which, this case has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons under the aforesaid sections.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 27.10.2025. As per discharge summary of Apollo Hospital Bilaspur, injured Manmohan was admitted from 25.10.2025 to 04.11.2025. During investigation, it is found that injured was admitted till 29.10.2025. It is further submitted that at the time of arrest, applicant was not communicated the ground of arrest. It is further submitted applicant belongs to Congress party and complainant belongs to ruling party therefore, this false case has been registered against the applicant. In one previous criminal record, applicant has been acquitted and in other cases offences registered against the applicant are bailable. Charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion of trial will take considerable time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State as well as objector have opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and prayed for it's rejection by submitting that applicant and another co-accused assaulted and caused injury to the Manmohan (injured) and when police received the information, they ran away from the spot. Injured was admitted to the hospital. Nature of injury is found to be grievous. Applicant is habitual offender. Prior to the alleged incident, applicant had assaulted and caused injury to the employee of the complainant at petrol pump for which FIR was lodged bearing Crime No.397/2024. Applicant was pressurizing to compromise the aforesaid matter and when the complainant did not agree for compromise then he made conspiracy with other co-accused to cause injury to Manmohan (complainant/injured). Applicant had also looted mobile of the complainant and the said mobile was seized from the applicant. Named FIR has been registered against the applicant. Blood stained lower and T-shirt have been seized from the possession of the applicant. Present applicant has criminal record of three cases. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this bail application.

5. It is further submitted that applicant was well aware of the fact that why he has been arrested and he was having knowledge that he has been taken on police remand for the recovery of looted mobile of the complainant. In the police remand, it is mentioned that to recover the looted mobile of the complainant, applicant's custody is necessary. Even in the order-sheet dated 26.10.2025, it is mentioned that for the recovery of looted mobile of the complainant, applicant's custody is required. The intention behind furnishing the ground of arrest is that accused should know why he is being arrested. It is submitted that applicant knew that why he has been arrested, therefore he has not raised the question regarding ground of arrest in his bail application filed before the concerning JMFC on 28.10.2025 and which was decided on 04.11.2025. It is also submitted that the question