Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tushar@Nikhil@Bankelal Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58441
1 CRA-9852-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9852 of 2025
TUSHAR@NIKHIL@BANKELAL RAJAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Agarwal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anil Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1.
Shri R. P. Mishra - Advocate for the objector.
ORDER
This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by the order
dated 25.08.2025 passed in SC ATR No.47/2025 by the Special Judge,
Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Katni
whereby his regular bail has been rejected.
2. Appellant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.92/2025
registered at Police Station-Ranganath Nagar, District Katni for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)
(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellant is in jail since
13.04.2025.
3. As per prosecution story on 11.4.2025 dead body of the deceased was
found.
4 . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58441
2 CRA-9852-2025
and falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
present appellant that Police has registered Merg and during the Merg
enquiry statement of various witnesses have been taken. It is submitted that
statement of Munni Bai has been taken twice on 11.4.2025 and same day
FIR has been registered but the name of present appellant along with other
co-accused person has not been mentioned in the FIR. While in the second
statement Munni Bai had named the present appellant and other co-accused
persons. It is also stated that total four eye witnesses and other three
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution after three days in which
name of present appellant and other co-accused has been revealed. It is also
stated axe which is said to have been seized from the present appellant was
having blood stains which is found in the FSL report but the process adopted
by the Police in taking the memorandum and search is highly suspicious as
inasmuch as police has taken the memorandum and seized the axe from the
possession of present appellant before arresting him. It is also submitted that
seizure has been made from the open place. There is also no motive
indicated by the prosecution in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant
relies upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Nandu Singh Vs. State
of M.P. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229; Shahid Khan Vs. State of
Rajasthan reported in (2016)4 SCC 96 and Manjunath & Ors Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 961. The appellant is ready and
willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon'ble
Court. In view of the aforesaid, he has prayed that the appellant be released
on bail.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58441
3 CRA-9852-2025
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for
the objector have vehemently opposed the bail application/appeal on the
ground that ample evidence has been collected by the prosecution in the form
of four eye witnesses, FSL report as well as seizure from the present
appellant. The police has proceeded with the investigation in a transparent
manner and there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the
prosecution. So far as the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the
appellant is concerned, in the case of Manjunath (supra), recovery of a
weapon from an open place accessible to all was not found to be reliable. In
the case of Shahid Khan (supra) the delay in recording statements of
prosecution witnesses not explained, Hon'ble Apex Court did not find case of
the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further in the case of
Nandu Singh (supra), in absence of motive in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, learned Court found it fatal for the prosecution. But at this stage,
law laid down in the aforementioned cases did not support the present
appellant because the factual aspects and circumstances of the present case
are distinguishable. In view of the aforesaid, they prayed for dismissal of
this appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties,
keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances of the case and having
taken into consideration the gravity of offence, evidence on record and clear
cut allegations against the appellant, and the distinguishable facts and
circumstances in this case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58441
4 CRA-9852-2025
of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail as if
appellant is released on bail, the possibility of influencing of prosecution
witnesses and tampering with the prosecution evidence cannot be ruled out.
7. Therefore, this bail application in the form of criminal appeal under
Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, filed on behalf of appellant is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
