Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raj Kishore Singh Chouhan @ Rashu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4646
1 MCRC-118-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 118 of 2025
RAJ KISHORE SINGH CHOUHAN @ RASHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Kapil Duggal - Advocate for applicant.
Shri C.M. Tiwari - Government Advocate for State.
Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra - Advocate for objector.
ORDER
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section
482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.864/2024
registered at Police Station - Kotwali Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 281, 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(1), 118(2)
and 3(5) of BNS.
2. As per the prosecution story, allegation against the applicant is of
committing marpeet and causing injury to the complainant by means of stick
and iron rod due to which he sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, aforesaid
offence has been registered against the and applicant and other co-accused
persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he is innocent and
has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that applicant was Parshad of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4646
2 MCRC-118-2025
Ward No.9, Damoh and wife of applicant was also Parshad in 2022. It is
submitted that Chief Municipal Officer, Damoh has issued notice to the
complainant on 12.09.2024 mentioning that wall of his house is dilapidated
and going to be demolished any time. Wife of applicant also gave a letter to
the Collector stating that complainant and his campanion are encroaching
nazul land. Other persons have also complained about the same against
complainant. Wife of applicant has also filed W.P. No.37504/2024 against
the complainant and other persons regarding the same issue. Applicant was
not present on the spot at the time of incident. Name of applicant is
mentioned in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion. There was old and
political enmity between the applicant and complainant, due to which
applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. Complainant has falsely
implicated the applicant with the help of police officers. It is further
submitted that if in FIR, material fact is not mentioned and it is disclosed
later, then it has no value. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the
decision of Apex Court in B.N. John Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., reported in
SLP (CRL.) No.2184/2024 . It is further submitted that there is no evidence
against the applicant that he has made conspiracy with other co-accused. In
this regard, applicant's counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13 .
Therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on
anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for State and objector have opposed the
grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant on the ground that there was land
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4646
3 MCRC-118-2025
dispute between complainant Pankaj Kumar Nawani and the present
applicant. Complainant was constructing boundary wall on his land. On the
date of incident in the morning time, present applicant threatened the
complainant. Present applicant and co-accused Lucky Chouhan had made
conspiracy and aggravated Anshul Dubey and Rohit for committing maarpeet
with the complainant. Anshul Dubey and Rohit have stated in their
statements that present applicant and co-accused Lucky Chouhan had told
them to commit maarpeet with the complainant. The complainant received
grievous injuries. Present applicant has four criminal records. Hence, he
prayed for dismissal of this bail application.
5. Having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of
the case and looking to the seriousness of offence, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
6. Consequently, present anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
Sateesh
