Mohit Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31338

1 MCRC-55577-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 3rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55577 of 2025
MOHIT PARIHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri BPS Chouhan - Public Proseuctor for the State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55550 of 2025
AJEET PARIHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri BPS Chouhan - Public Proseuctor for the State.

ORDER

The applicants No.1 and 2, namely, Mohit Parihar and Ajeet Parihar have filed these first bail applications under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail. They apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.271/2025 registered at Police Station Dabra Dehat, District Gwalior in relation to the offence punishable under

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31338

2 MCRC-55577-2025 Sections 115(2), 296, 118(1), 3(5), 109 of BNS.

As per prosecution story, the complainant Mukesh lodged a report at Police Station Damoh Dehat alleging that on 22.10.2025 at about 4:00 PM, the accused Munnesh Parihar, due to an old enmity, was abusing Mukesh's nephew Abhishek Jatav with filthy and abusive language. When they objected to the abuses, Mohit Parihar (applicant No.1) struck Abhishek Jatav on the head with an axe, causing an injury with bleeding, and Pankaj Parihar (applicant No.2) hit him with an iron rod, causing a blunt injury on his back. When the complainant and his sister-in-law Jyoti Jatav intervened to stop the assault, the accused persons also beat them. The complainant suffered blunt injuries on his right hand and left

knee, and Jyoti was beaten by Poonam Parihar with a stick, resulting in blunt injuries on both her hands and on her head. Thereafter, when the complainant's brother Harvilas Jatav, Sonu Jatav, and sister-in-law Menwati Jatav came to rescue them, Ajit Parihar (applicant No.2), Munnesh Parihar and Mohit Parihar (applicant No.2) assaulted them as well. Harvilas Jatav sustained scratches on both palms, on the left thumb, on the right cheek, and also suffered a head injury with bleeding. Sonu Jatav was struck on the head with an axe by Mohit Parihar (applicant No.1), causing bleeding, and he also suffered a nasal injury with bleeding and swelling on a finger of his right hand. Menwati Jatav suffered a blunt injury on her left shoulder. The incident was witnessed by Virendra Jatav and Pradeep Jatav. Based on the complainant's report,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31338

3 MCRC-55577-2025 Police Station Damoh Dehat registered Crime No.271/2025 under Sections 115(2), 296, 118(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the applicants and took up the matter for investigation. During investigation, as injured Harvilas had sustained a grievous head injury, Section 109 of the BNS was added, and the investigation is still incomplete.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the incident in question actually occurred at the applicants' residence. It is contended that on 22.10.2025, the complainant party, in an intoxicated condition, came to the applicants' house, abused them, and assaulted them with iron rods and other weapons. On the report lodged by the applicants' cousin, Police Station Dabra Dehat registered Crime No.270/2025, which is under investigation. Thereafter, only to create pressure and to falsely implicate the applicants, the complainant party lodged a counter and fabricated report, leading to registration of Crime No.271/2025.

It is further submitted that in Crime No.271/2025, the police had issued a notice under Section 35 BNS to the applicants and other co- accused persons and released them on bail during investigation. Subsequently, with mala fide political intention, Sections 109 and 308 of the BNS were added. Had the injured Harvilas truly suffered any life- threatening injury, the medical report would have been obtained within two days and the police would not have released the applicants on notice

under bailable provisions. The applicants have already appeared before

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31338

4 MCRC-55577-2025 the investigating officer and cooperated with the investigation, and therefore, their release on bail is in the interest of justice. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Bachchu Singh v. State of M.P., MPWN 1988 (2) Note 226, wherein it has been held that when a cross-case exists and the investigating officer has already released the accused persons on bail, parity requires that the applicants also be granted bail. It is further submitted that the incident occurred at the applicants' residence and that the complainant party intentionally came to their house and assaulted them, but the police, acting in collusion with the complainant side, added Section 307 IPC/BNS against the applicants. In this regard, the applicants and co- accused Pankaj Parihar have already submitted representations before the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, and the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, seeking impartial investigation and medical board examination of the injured. On the contrary, applicant Mohit Parihar (applicant No.1) sustained a serious head injury caused by an axe blow inflicted by the complainant party. The applicant was admitted on 22.10.2025 in the Rogi Kalyan Samiti Civil Hospital, Dabra, as well as in Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior. It is also submitted that the marriage of applicant No.1, Mohit Parihar, has already been fixed for 03.12.2025 with Smt. Seeka Kajaan, daughter of Virendra Singh Parihar, resident of Village Putti, Tehsil Kabra, District Gwalior, and the invitation card is filed as Annexure A-6. After the applicants were

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31338

5 MCRC-55577-2025 released on notice under Section 35, no condition imposed by the investigating officer has been violated and the applicants have continued to appear before the authorities as required. The applicants are innocent, there is no possibility of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and considering that the trial may take considerable time to conclude, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicants are specifically named in the FIR and their active role in the assault is clearly reflected from the statements of the injured witnesses. The prosecution asserts that the applicants, along with other co-accused persons, attacked the complainant party with deadly weapons including an axe and iron rod, causing multiple injuries to several individuals, some of which are grievous in nature. During investigation, it has been revealed that injured Harvilas sustained a serious head injury, due to which Section 109 BNS has been added. The State submits that the gravity of the offence, the number of injured persons, and the use of dangerous weapons strongly oppose the grant of bail. It is further contended that the counter-case filed by the applicants' side does not diminish their involvement in the present offence; rather, it indicates that both parties were involved in a violent confrontation. The applicants' release may lead to intimidation or influence over material witnesses, as they reside in the same locality and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31338

6 MCRC-55577-2025 the dispute between the parties is ongoing. The investigation is still incomplete, and releasing the applicants at this stage may adversely affect the fair and impartial progress of the investigation. Therefore, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon meticulous perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicants are specific, direct, and supported by the statements of injured witnesses as well as the medical evidence on record. The applicants, along with other co-accused persons, assaulted multiple members of the complainant party with deadly weapons such as an axe and an iron rod, resulting in serious injuries, including a grievous head injury sustained by injured Harvilas. It is in this background that Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has been added during the course of investigation. The gravity of the offence, the number of injured persons, and the manner of assault indicate a violent and premeditated attack, which cannot be lightly ignored at this stage.

The plea of false implication on the ground of a counter-case being registered does not, in the opinion of this Court, dilute the nature of accusations against the applicants and the existence of a cross-case

only indicates that both parties were involved in a severe confrontation, and the applicants' role as disclosed in the FIR and supported by material evidence cannot be brushed aside. The applicants were earlier released

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31338

7 MCRC-55577-2025 on notice under Section 35 BNSS, but the subsequent discovery of serious injuries and addition of more severe penal provisions materially change the circumstances, rendering them no longer entitled to the same benefit.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the gravity of the offence, the nature of the injuries, the stage of investigation, and the possibility of interference with witnesses, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in favour of the applicants. Consequently, the application seeking bail under Section 482 BNSS stands dismissed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

pwn*