IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57564 of 2025 KALABAI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Ali Shah advocate for applicant.

Shri Santosh Singh Thakur public prosecutor for State.

ORDER

1. This second application has been filed by the applicant under Section

483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 313/2025 registered at Police Station - Mahidpur, District Ujjain(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 296, 103(1), 3(5) of The BNS, 2023. The applicant is in custody since 10.10.2025. Her first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer after examination of complainant Jyoti and eye witness Anil vide order dated 14.11.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.

50690/2025. Thereafter, Jyoti (PW-1) and Anil (PW-2) have been examined.

2. Heard the arguments.

3. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and the relevant material on record.

4. 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. It is a case of false over implication. The alleged offence is not committed by the applicant. She did not join the quarrel. Main prosecution witnesses Jyoti (PW-1) and Anil (PW-2) did not support the prosecution, rather, exonerated the applicant. The fate of prosecution is apparent. The trial would take time to conclude. There is no likelihood of tampering with the remaining witnesses by the applicant as the material prosecution witnesses have been examined. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. Learned counsel refers to one criminal antecedent against all the three applicant, as mentioned in the case diary.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in other matter the applicant has been acquitted. The applicant has never been convicted for any major offence.

7. According to the material available on case diary, Prakash had an altercation with Bhuralal over land dispute. Kalabai, Pappu and Pankaj also joined in the quarrel. They also abused Bhuralal in filthy language. Bhuralal objected to abuses. Kalabai and Prakash assaulted Bhuralal with wooden stick. Pappu assaulted Bhuralal with iron rod on his head. Bhuralal fell down. Pawan pelted stone at Bhuralal. Anil and Jyoti intervened. Bhuralal was taken for treatment to Government Hospital, Mahidpur. The medical officer declared Bhuralal dead. The Police Station Mahidpur registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 296, 103(1), 3(5) of The BNS 2023 against Prakash, Pappu, Pawan and Kalabai. Kalabai was arrested on 10.10.2025. She is in custody ever since. A wooden stick was seized at the instance of applicant. The eye witness Jyoti (PW-1) and Anil (PW-2), daughter-in-law and son of the deceased, have been examined before the trial Court. They did not support the accusation. The trial would take time to conclude. The contentions raised by counsel for the applicant has prima-facie substance. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the trial.

8 . As informed, the applicant is aged 48 years and is homemaker.

Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of any previous conviction for any major offence, considering the socio-economic status of the applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with the remaining evidence or influencing the witnesses by the applicant. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue incarceration of the applicant. However, the observations, herein-

above, are recorded for present application only.

9. Considering the riv