Madhya Pradesh High Court
Poshan Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21357
1 MCRC-41406-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41406 of 2025
POSHAN RAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav - Advocate (through VC) alongwith Shri Trishant
Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
The present is the fifth bail application filed by the applicant under
Section 483 of BNSS on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial and on
parity, as two co-accused persons, namely Ramswaroop and Udaybhan
Singh Rawat, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated
01.09.2025 and 22.08.2025 respectively.
It is relevant to note that the earlier bail application of the applicant
was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.11050 of
2025 with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it as
early as possible, preferably within one year.
The applicant has been in custody since 10.06.2021, having been
arrested by Police Station Aron, District Gwalior in connection with Crime
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21357
2 MCRC-41406-2025
No.31 of 2021, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307,
147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 120-B IPC and Sections 25, 27, 30 of the Arms Act.
As per prosecution story, on 26.05.2021 at 23:50 hours, complainant
Raghuveer lodged an oral report in the Emergency Ward of J.A.H., Gwalior,
alleging that due to old enmity, on 26.05.2021 at about 10:15 p.m., the
applicant/accused (Posan Rawat) armed with a .315 bore firearm, along with
co-accused persons Bunty Rawat (lathi), Dharmveer Rawat (.12 bore gun),
Rajveer Rawat, Pushpendra Rawat (.12 bore gun), Atendra Rawat (.12 bore
gun) and Ashok Rawat (.315 bore gun), came together near the complainant's
tube-well. They started hurling abuses and opened indiscriminate fire with
intention to kill. At that time, the applicant/accused (Posan) fired with his
Mauser gun aiming to kill complainant's younger brother Ramniwas, hitting
him in the right side of his abdomen. On sustaining the gunshot, Ramniwas
fell on the ground. Meanwhile, co-accused Bunty and Rajveer assaulted
complainant's father Bharat Singh with sticks, causing blunt injuries on his
leg, head and hand.
The incident was witnessed by Vikram Singh and Sughar Singh, who
were present at the spot. Thereafter, Ramniwas was taken to J.A.H. Hospital,
where doctors declared him dead, and Bharat Singh was admitted in Link
Hospital for treatment.
On the basis of the aforesaid report, alleged crime was registered
against the applicant and other accused persons. During investigation,
information was received from Police Station Aron that one .315 bore rifle
was seized from applicant/accused (Posan Singh Rawat); a stick was seized
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21357
3 MCRC-41406-2025
from co-accused Bunty Rawat; a .12 bore gun from Dharmveer Rawat; a .12
bore gun from Pushpendra Rawat; a .12 bore gun from Atendra Rawat; and a
.315 bore gun from Ashok Rawat.
Since the names of these accused persons were recorded as license
holders of such firearms, their acts also attracted provisions under Section 30
of the Arms Act. Therefore, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
interrogations were conducted, and upon failure to produce valid firearm
licenses, the said weapons were duly seized. Separate notices under Sections
41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. were also issued.
Further, against co-accused Mukesh Rawat, investigation under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is continuing. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed on 19.08.2021 against applicant/accused (Posan) and
other co-accused persons, namely, Bunty, Rajveer, Pushpendra, Atendra,
Ashok, Saroj, for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 120-
B IPC read with Section 307 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act; and
against co-accused Ramswaroop, Udayman, Bharat Singh for offences under
Section 30 Arms Act.
The challan was presented before the Court on 19.08.2021, from
where the case was committed and is presently pending trial before trial
Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before this Court
that the applicant has been in custody since 10.06.2021, i.e., for more than
four years, and yet the trial has not reached its conclusion. This Court, while
dismissing the applicant's earlier bail application in M.Cr.C. No. 11050 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21357
4 MCRC-41406-2025
2025 (decided on 11.03.2025), had directed the learned Trial Court to
expedite and conclude the trial preferably within one year. However, despite
the lapse of the said period, the trial remains pending.
It is an admitted fact that two co-accused persons, namely
Ramswaroop and Udaybhan Singh Rawat, have already been granted bail by
this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 01.09.2025 and 22.08.2025
respectively. The principle of parity is a settled doctrine in bail jurisprudence,
and once co-accused having similar or even more serious allegations have
been granted bail, the applicant cannot be treated differently without any
distinguishing circumstance. In the absence of such distinguishing features,
denial of bail to the present applicant would amount to hostile
discrimination, contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The investigation against the applicant is complete. The charge-sheet
was filed on 19.08.2021 and the case is pending trial.
It is submitted that the recovery of firearm alleged against the
applicant has already been effected, and his further custodial interrogation is
not required. Hence, his continued detention serves no useful purpose for the
prosecution.
It is well settled that the right to speedy trial is a facet of Article 21.
The Apex Court in the matter of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar,
(1980) 1 SCC 81 and subsequent decisions has repeatedly emphasized that
detention beyond reasonable period without conclusion of trial is
unconstitutional.
Further, while placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21357
5 MCRC-41406-2025
Court in the matter of K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India, (2021) 3 SCC 713, it is
submitted that prolonged pre-trial detention is by itself a ground to grant bail,
notwithstanding the seriousness of allegations, particularly when the trial is
unlikely to conclude in the near future. It is further submitted that the
applicant is a permanent resident of District Gwalior, has deep roots in the
society, and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with
prosecution evidence. The applicant undertakes to abide by all conditions
which may be imposed by this Court. Lastly, it is submitted that though the
offence alleged is serious, the balance between the gravity of the offence and
the constitutional right to personal liberty must be maintained. Since the
applicant has already suffered incarceration for over four years, denial of bail
at this stage would amount to punishment before conviction.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State while vehemently
opposed the application has submitted that the applicant is the Principal
Assailant. The applicant stands on an entirely different footing from the co-
accused who have been released on bail. The prosecution story specifically
attributes the fatal gunshot injury to deceased Ramniwas to the applicant. He
is alleged to have fired from a .315 bore firearm at close range, causing the
death of Ramniwas on the spot. Thus, the role of the present applicant is
principal and distinct, unlike other co-accused who have either been charged
with less serious roles (under Section 30 Arms Act or lathi injuries) or
against whom weaker evidence is available. The allegations against the
applicant relate to offences punishable under Section 302 IPC (murder) and
allied provisions of IPC and the Arms Act. The incident was not a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21357
6 MCRC-41406-2025
spontaneous quarrel but a pre-meditated, armed attack with multiple accused
persons, resulting in one death and serious injuries to another.
The Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi,
(2005) 8 SCC 21 has categorically held that in serious offences involving
murder, the gravity of the crime and its impact on society are significant
considerations for denial of bail.
It is further submitted that the applicant's reliance on parity is
misplaced. Co-accused Ramswaroop and Udaybhan Singh Rawat, who were
granted bail earlier, were either charged for lesser offences under the Arms
Act or their role was not of the same gravity as the present applicant.
The Apex Court in the matter of Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014)
16 SCC 508 has clarified that parity cannot be claimed mechanically; where
the role is distinguishable, bail can be refused even if co-accused are
enlarged on bail.
It is further submitted that this is the fifth bail application of the
applicant. His earlier applications, including M.Cr.C. No. 11050 of 2025
(decided on 11.03.2025), were rejected after this Court duly considered the
same submissions. The present bail plea is based on stale arguments which
were already advanced and dealt with in earlier bail proceedings. The law is
well settled that successive bail applications can be entertained only if there
is a substantial change in circumstances since the previous rejection. In the
present case, no such change has been demonstrated. [Pls. see: Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42].
It is further submitted that he applicant has argued delay in conclusion
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21357
7 MCRC-41406-2025
of trial; however, such delay is not attributable solely to the prosecution. The
trial has been prolonged due to multiple factors, including: filing of
supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., examination of
large number of witnesses, transfers of presiding officers, and adjournments
sought by the defence side on several occasions. Therefore, the applicant
cannot claim delay as an absolute ground to secure bail.
It is further submitted that the prosecution case rests substantially on
the testimony of eyewitnesses Vikram Singh and Sughar Singh. If released,
the applicant, being a resident of the same locality and a person of influence,
is likely to threaten or influence material witnesses. This would directly
jeopardize the fairness of trial. Courts have consistently recognized that
where there exists a reasonable apprehension of witness intimidation, bail
should be denied.
In the matter of Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, the
Apex Court held that in offences like murder, courts must give due weight to
the seriousness of allegations and the societal interest, and bail should not be
granted merely because of lapse of time. Similarly, in Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar (supra), it was reiterated that liberty under Article 21 has to be
balanced with the larger interest of justice and protection of society. Grant of
bail to the main shooter in a brutal daylight murder would send a wrong
message to society and erode faith in the criminal justice system.
Considering the gravity of the crime and its effect on law and order in the
locality, public interest strongly weighs against grant of bail. In light of the
above, it is submitted that the applicant is the main assailant against whom
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21357
8 MCRC-41406-2025
direct and grave allegations exist; the argument of parity is not applicable,
given his distinct role; the present application is based on stale grounds
already considered and rejected in earlier bail proceedings; delay in trial is
not a sufficient ground, particularly when it is not attributable solely to the
prosecution and there exists a genuine apprehension of witness intimidation
if he is released. Accordingly, the applicant does not deserve indulgence of
this Court, and the present bail application is liable to be rejected.
Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the material on record, and
the seriousness of the allegations leveled against the applicant, the Court
finds that earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court on 11.03.2025 in M.Cr.C. No.11050 of 2025, with a
specific direction to the learned Trial Court to expedite and conclude the
proceedings preferably within one year. The role attributed to the present
applicant is distinct and principal in nature. As per the prosecution case, it
was the applicant who fired from a .315 bore firearm, inflicting the fatal
gunshot injury to deceased Ramniwas, which is the very substratum of the
case under Section 302 IPC. This circumstance alone disentitles him to claim
bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who were either charged with
lesser offences or assigned a secondary role.
The argument of prolonged incarceration has also been pressed.
However, the record indicates that the delay in conclusion of trial is not
wholly attributable to the prosecution. The case involves multiple accused
persons, recovery of firearms, filing of supplementary charge-sheet under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21357
9 MCRC-41406-2025
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., and examination of numerous witnesses, some of
which are yet to be completed. The right to speedy trial under Article 21
cannot be invoked as an absolute ground for release when the applicant
himself faces direct allegations of committing murder by firearm.
Furthermore, the present application merely reiterates stale arguments
which stood considered and rejected earlier. Law is well settled that
successive bail applications cannot be entertained in the absence of any
substantial change in circumstances. Reference may be made to Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42, wherein the Apex Court
had held that repeated applications on the same grounds are impermissible.
Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the specific role of the
applicant as the principal shooter, this Court does not find any ground to
exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the bail application filed by
applicant is found to be devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed. It
is, however, directed that the learned Trial Court shall make all endeavours
to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest, in terms of earlier
directions issued by this Court.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
