Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kalu @ Balkishan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2957 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2957 MP
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalu @ Balkishan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 July, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
                                          1
                    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          M.Cr.C. No.32197/2021
                         (Kalu @ Balkishan vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 05.07.2021
      Heard through videoconferencing.
      Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Manish Nayak, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Shri Atul Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

Heard on I.A. No.19656/2021, which is an application under

Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. for permitting the learned counsel for the

complainant to assist the Public Prosecutor.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is

allowed and the counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the

State counsel.

Case diary is available.

The applicant has filed this third application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for

grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Purani

Chawani, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.378/2020

registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 341,

294, 323, 324, 427, 506, 34, 325, 326, 307 of IPC. First application was

dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3.3.2021 in M.Cr.C.

No.1398/2021 and second application was rejected on merits vide order

dated 22.04.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.19273/2021.

It is alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He

has not committed the offence in any manner. It is submitted that the

repeat application has been filed on the ground of custody period of the

applicant that he is in custody since 16.11.2020. Charge sheet has

already been filed. Looking to the nature of allegations against the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.32197/2021 (Kalu @ Balkishan vs. State of M.P.)

present applicant, he prays for grant of bail. There is no further

requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. He has

placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Pashora Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC

1256 and has argued that in similar circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has found that no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out.

He has further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of

Sakharam vs. State of M.P. reported in 2016 1 SCC Cri. 52 as well as

in the case of Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare v. State of Maharashtra &

Anr. reported in 2001(3) Crimes 410. wherein looking to the nature of

offence and the custody period the applicant was enlarged on bail. He

has further placed reliance on para 12 of the judgment passed in the

case of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, AIR 2011 SC 340 to substantiate

his arguments. He has further pointed out that there is no bony injury

seen on the head of the injured. The allegation against the present

applicant is inflicting injury to Sandeep on his head whereas in the

medical no bony injury was found on the head, therefore, at the most

offence under Section 325 of IPC would be made out against the

present applicant. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions

that may be imposed by this Court and has further shown his

willingness to render his services during this COVID 19 pandemic for

the help of the needy. Looking to the present scenario of COVID 19

pandemic, he prays for grant of bail.

Per contra, counsel for the State as well as the complainant have

opposed the application stating that there is active participation of the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.32197/2021 (Kalu @ Balkishan vs. State of M.P.)

applicant in commission of offence. The applicant is said to have

inflicted injury on the head of the injured Sandeep in specific and

omnibus allegations regarding inflicting injury to Uday also. But they

fairly submit that no bony injuries found in the medical report.

Counsel for the complainant has contended that the case laws

which are relied upon by the counsel for the applicant are not attracted

in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in all those

cases the doctor has not given a specific opinion regarding the injuries

to be dangerous to life whereas in the present case the doctor has

specifically opined that the injuries were dangerous to life and it was

very difficult for the doctors to save the life of the injured.

At this stage, counsel for the applicant has pointed out that AIR

1993 SC 1256 (supra) also was a case under Section 307 of IPC and

looking to the custody period the bail was granted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

diary.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on

7.5.2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020 and by

the Division Bench of this Court on 17.05.2021 in SUO MOTU W.P.

(C) No.9320/2021 regarding decongestion of prisoners and taking

aid of the judgment passed by the Supreme court in the case of

Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare (supra), this Court deems it

appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, the application is

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.32197/2021 (Kalu @ Balkishan vs. State of M.P.)

allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)

with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Investigation Officer /trial Court, as the case may be with submission

of written undertaking and he will abide by all terms and conditions of

the different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by the Central

Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for

maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus

(COVID -19) pandemic and he will have to install Arogya Setu App,

if not already installed.

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

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of

the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case

may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so

as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the

Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence

of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the

trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.32197/2021 (Kalu @ Balkishan vs. State of M.P.)

the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

7. The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned

Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would

be the duty of the State counsel to send E-copy of this order to SHO of

concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned

who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.

8. In case of involvement of the applicant in any other offence, the

bail granted by this Court shall stand rejected automatically.

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before

releasing the applicant, medical examination of applicant shall be

undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima facie, if it is found that he is

having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up

action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be

ensured, otherwise applicant shall be released immediately on bail and

shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of

residence.

E- copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of

this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is

made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy

for practical purposes in respect of this order.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2021.07.07 12:48:15

-07'00'

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter