Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Pushpendra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 5361 MP

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5361 MP
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2025

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pushpendra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2025

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11820




                                                               1                           MCRC-7263-2025
                              IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
                                                  ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2025
                                             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7263 of 2025
                                                    PUSHPENDRA YADAV
                                                           Versus
                                               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                              Mr. Kunal Dubey - Advocate for applicant.
                              Mr. Nikesh Vishwakarma - Panel Lawyer for State.

                                                                   ORDER

This is the third application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023/Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.417 of 2021 registered at Police Station - Civil Lines Rewa, District - Rewa (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.

2. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant was

given the benefit of conditional bail vide M.Cr.C. No.9858 of 2022 dated 29.03.2022, in which, it was directed that the applicant shall deposit Rs.34,00,000/- but till today, the applicant is not in a position to deposit the aforesaid amount, hence he is in judicial custody and the trial will take considerable time to be concluded, hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that only one

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11820

2 MCRC-7263-2025 witness has been examined till today and in that circumstances, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2023)7 Supreme 260 in paragraph no.28 it is observed as under:-

"28. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11820

3 MCRC-7263-2025 exercise the power to grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years."

4. Learned counsel for State has opposed the bail application and has submitted that the applicant was given the benefit of bail and he had shown bonafide to deposit the amount but he did not and the applicant has four criminal antecedents of the same nature, hence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on amended bail.

5. Heard the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, earlier, the applicant was given the benefit of bail with certain conditions but till today, the condition has not been fulfilled, hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, therefore, the bail application filed by the applicant stands dismissed.

7. Applicant is in custody for more than three years and the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and decide the same on merits as soon as possible.

8. Accordingly, Misc. Criminal Case stands disposed of.

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE

julie

 
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 : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter