Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10981
1 MCRC-13696-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13696 of 2025
ANKIT SHUKLA S/O RAJESH SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Applicant by Shri Sunil Gupta - Learned Senior Advocate appearing
along with Shri Parv Birla - Advocate.
Respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari -
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
This repeat (third) bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) has
been filed by applicant - Ankit Shukla S/o Rajesh Shukla for grant of regular
bail, who has been arrested on 27.01.2021 in connection with Crime No.82
of 2021 registered at Police Station Bhanwarkuwa, Indore District Indore
(MP) for commission of offence under Sections 302, 323, 34, 279 and 294 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 25 (1-b) of Arms Act, 1959.
First and second bail applications of the applicant were dismissed by
this Court respectively vide order dated 13.10.2023 passed in Miscellaneous
Criminal Case No.41599 of 2023 and order dated 02.09.2024 passed in
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.33751 of 2024 as withdrawn.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10981
2 MCRC-13696-2025
2. As per prosecution case, the applicant along with his father (co-
accused Rajesh Kumar Shukla) was going in a car bearing registration
number MP-09 CF-6172; and on the fateful day i.e. 26.01.2021 deceased
Lokesh - a auto driver collided his auto bearing registration number MP-09
RA-7545 with the car, which had given rise to the incident. Both the
accused persons hurled filthy abuses on the deceased and complainant Dipak;
when they objected, co-accused (Adhed Vyakti wore black T-shirt) took a
Danda (wooden stick) from the car and assaulted Lokesh on his shoulder and
exhorted the applicant to shoot the deceased thereon, the applicant took out
his gun from the car and fired a shot, which landed on left chest side of
Lokesh (deceased). Injured Lokesh was taken to the hospital where he
passed away. Accordingly, first information report was registered vide
Crime No.82 of 2021 at Police Station Bhanwarkuwa, Indore, District Indore
(MP) for commission of offence as mentioned in first paragraph.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
applicant is suffering incarceration since 27.01.2021 and co-accused Rajesh
Kumar Shukla (father of the applicant) has been granted bail. Dipak who
has lodged FIR is not an eye witness and for this, he has invited attention of
this Court towards Compact Disc (CD) Article A/1 and the statements of
Shankar Chandel (PW-8) and Sandeep Rajput (PW-11), who have also said
that Dipak was not present on the spot, and therefore, not an eye witness.
There is no chance of tampering with the evidence, as important witnesses
twenty three out of forty four have been examined; and recording of
remaining witnesses will take considerable long time.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10981
3 MCRC-13696-2025
3.1 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has placed
reliance on order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Apex Court in Petition (s)
for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No (s).8523 of 2024 (Arising out of
impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 passed in CRM-M
No.11297 of 2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh) (Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & another ) wherein in
similar circumstances, applicant in that case was granted bail.
3.2 Therefore, on these grounds, learned Senior Counsel prays for
allowing the bail application and for grant of bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / State has
vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that it is the applicant who has
shot the deceased and there is ample proof of the evidence lead in the case.
The gun seized from the applicant was sent for Ballistic Expert Report and in
that report, it has been found that it was used for shooting. Thus,
circumstantial ballistic evidence along with eye witness account amply
connects the applicant with the offence committed, therefore, learned
counsel prays that bail may not be granted to the applicant.
5. Heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties with
the aid of case diary.
6. Even though custody is of more than four years, but the evidence
available so far directly connects the applicant with the alleged crime along
with the eye witness account. Ballistic Expert's Report also supports
prosecution case.
The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10981
4 MCRC-13696-2025
applicant based on factual matrix of that case, cannot be cited as a precedent,
in view of distinguishing features of this case.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to
grant benefit of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the present repeat bail
application is dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rcp
