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

rd

ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6607 of 2026 MOHAN SINGH YADAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Prem Singh Bhadouria - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for the State.

ORDER This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.114/2024 registered at Police Station – Rampurkalan, District - Morena(M.P.) for the offence under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 25(2) of the Arms Act. Earlier bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court.

2. As per the story of prosecution, the applicant along with other co-

accused persons committed marpeet with the complainant side by means of knife and wooden sticks. In this aforesaid incident, one Girraj sustained grievous injuries and died. One Lokendra Singh sustained injuries. Therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Applicant is in custody since 13.11.2024.

Investigation is almost over. No custodial interrogation is required. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. The present applicant has not caused any injuries to the deceased in the alleged incident. He has already suffered 16 months of incarceration as pretrial detention. Surprisingly, till now, only three prosecution witnesses have been examined which points a considerable delay in the trial. The injuries who allegedly sustained injuries by the applicant has already been discharged from the hospital. It is further argued, the application has been suffering confinement since 13.11.2024. Applicant is the permanent resident of district Morena (M.P.). and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. The applicant shall abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, prays for grant of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection by submitting that there are sufficient material available on record against the present applicant. It is further contended that material recovery has also been made from his possession. Hence, he does not deserve bail.

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

7. From care perusal of the records reveals that the applicant is in confinement for almost 14 months and till now only three witnesses have been examined.

8. Considering the above submissions made by the counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court.

8. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;

ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation /trial, as the case may be;

iii) The applicant will not indulge himself /herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such acts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv) The applicant will not commit any other offence or will not repeat the offence in future. In case offence of same nature is repeated, this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled;

v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

and vi) The applicant will not leave