IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

th

ON THE 15 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52998 of 2025 RAHUL EASK Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vikas Rathi - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Virendra Khadav -Govt. Adv.appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].

ORDER

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

483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as he/she is implicated in connection with Crime No.227/2021 registered at Police Station-Malharganj, District-Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 302, 34, 201, 120-B of the IPC. The applicant has been in custody since 25.04.2021. 2] Allegation against the applicant is of murder of one Anjali, who was having an extramarital affair with co-accused Jitendra @ Lallu Aske and residing in a flat as his second wife; whereas the applicant happens to be the real brother of co-accused Jitendra @ Lallu Aske.

3] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.04.2021. Although out of 58 prosecution witnesses, 28 have been examined in the trial court, recently, on 10.10.2025, charges have also been altered by the trial court, and Section 315 of the IPC, i.e., causing death of an unborn child, has also been added. Thus, all the witnesses are to be tried afresh in the light of the aforesaid charge.

4] Counsel has further submitted that co-accused Jitendra @ Lallu Aske, whose second wife was allegedly murdered by the applicant and the other accused, has already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no. 2424/2025 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) no. 4154/2025) dated 02.05.2025, and under the circumstances as aforesaid, when all the witnesses shall be re-examined due to amendment in the charges, the application deserves to be allowed looking to the period of incarceration as he is in jail since 25.04.2021, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time.

5] Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. However, it is not denied that the witnesses who have been examined until now will have to be re-examined.

6] Heard, on due consideration and on perusal of the case diary, and taking note of the fact that the applicant has been lodged in jail for the last four years and eight months, and almost all the 58 witnesses have to be examined and some of them shall be reexamined in the trial court, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application.

7] Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he/she shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 480(3) BNSS, 2023.

8] However, it is also observed that even though a heinous offence was committed by the accused persons of murdering a pregnant woman and her unborn child, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer as also the prosecutor in the trial court to ensure that the proper charges are framed however, they have certainly failed in their duties only to the benefit of the accused persons, who are also the police personnel, although it is apparent that counsel for the applicant has also deliberately not mentioned this fact in the entire bail application, including the cause title where the occupation of the applicant is stated to be "job".

9] With the aforesaid, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)

JUDGE moni