[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhaniram Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25614
1 MCRC-11652-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11652 of 2026
DHANIRAM YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Naveriya - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Nagendra Solanki - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail relating to
FIR/Crime No.333/2025 registered at Police Station Mohangarh, District
Tikamgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 190, 191(3),
191(2), 296(A), 109(1), 117(2), 103 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. The applicant is in jail since 03.11.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on the same incident,
a counter case has also been registered as Crime No.335/2025 at Police Station
Mohangarh, in which, it is alleged that on 29.10.2025 at about 06.00 pm, the
complainant Satyendra Singh was going to purchase some articles from the
grocery shop and at that time, Ramprasad came from the village side and started
abusing him and when the complainant of that case Satyendra Singh took an
objection, Ramprasad had assaulted him and when Ghanshyam Yadav came there
to rescue Satyendra Singh, then Rajendra Yadav, Rajni Yadav and Sushila Yadav
had assaulted him. Mahesh and Vinod Yadav were present on the spot as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25614
2 MCRC-11652-2026
witnesses.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the allegation
against the applicant is that he assaulted Ramprasad Yadav. It is also alleged that
main quarrel took place between Rajni d/o Jasrath, her cousin sister namely Ashmi
Yadav and Rajaram, Ghanshyam, Satyendra, Veersingh. The allegation is that
Ghanshyam, Satyendra, Rajaram, and Veersingh were standing near their house,
armed with lathis. Subsequently, Ghanshyam and Veersingh caught hold Rajni and
assaulted her with lathi. When her sister Ashmi came to rescue Rajni, Satyendra
assaulted her and carried both the girls within their boundary walls. When her
mother Sushila, father Jasrath, aunt Sewa Yadav, Ramprasad came to rescue them,
Ghanshyam Yadav armed with an axe and Rajaram Yadav, Satyendra, Veersingh,
Vimla, Ramdevi, Sonu, Dhaniram and Mukesh armed with lathi came there and
started assaulting the family members of the victim. Ghanshyam assaulted the
victim's father on his leg with an axe whereas Rajaram, Satyendra, Veersingh had
assaulted her mother. Ramdevi, Vimla, Rohni had also assaulted her mother. As
per prosecution case, Ramprasad was assaulted by Dhaniram, Sonu and Mukesh.
4. Thus, it is clear that the applicant was not present on the spot and came
after the quarrel started. There is no allegation that the applicant had assaulted the
deceased Jasrath. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant had
assaulted Ramprasad, who in the cross-case was an aggressor. Hence, the
applicant be enlarged on bail as the trial will take time to be concluded.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the bail application
and submitted that in furtherance of a common intention, the applicant had
assaulted Ramprasad and he is equally liable for the murder of the deceased
Jasrath, hence, no case of bail is made out in his favour.
6. Heard the parties and perused the case diary.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25614
3 MCRC-11652-2026
7. Looking to above factual aspects of the case, coupled with the fact that
trial will take time to be concluded, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the
applicant on bail. Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
the application is allowed.
8. It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for
his appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may be fixed by that
Court in this regard during pendency of trial.
9. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of
Section 480(3) of BNSS.
10. Accordingly, Misc. Criminal Case stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
dm
