[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Alias Mantola vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10988
1 MCRC-13301-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13301 of 2026
ARUN ALIAS MANTOLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Prachi Dubey - Advocate for the applicant.
Smt. Kalpana Parmar - PP for the State.
Shri Aman Chauhan - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
This first bail application has been filed by applicant under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail. Applicant has been
arrested on 10.03.2026 in connection with Crime No.102 of 2023 registered at
Police Station Bhagchini, District Morena (M.P.) for offence punishable under
Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.
2. As per the case of prosecution, Harendra Singh Sikarwar, son of Kedar
Singh Sikarwar reported at District Hospital, Morena that on 21-04-2023 around
07:00-08:00 O'clock in the night, he was standing with his elder brother Indraveer
Singh Sikarwar near his house at Village Ranchore. He heard fire of bullets from
his house. Seven- eight persons were firing at his house. He saw that Suresh
Sikarwar, Balster Sikarwar, Ramvilas, Rajbahadur Sikarwar, Arvind alias
Veechka Sikarwar, present applicant/Arun alias Mantola Sikarwar, Rambhajan
Sikarwar and Satendra Sikarwar were armed with gun, katta, lathi and axe. Suresh
fired on his nephew Situ alias Vijay Sikarwar. Bullet hit on the head of Situ alias
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10988
2 MCRC-13301-2026
Vijay Sikarwar, he fell down. Balster fired on him but the bullet missed. Satendra
fired on Indraveer, he fell down and injured his right leg. Thereafter, all the
accused fled away. He and Indraveer had taken Situ alias Vijay Sikarwar to
Morena Hospital where the doctor declared him dead. On such allegations, dehati
nalishi was recorded at District Hospital, Morena which was forwarded to PS
Bagchini, District Morena. PS Bagchini registered FIR at Crime No.102 of 2023
for offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of IPC. One gunshot
injury was found on person of Situ alias Vijay Sikarwar during autopsy. Medical
expert opined that Situ alias Vijay Sikarwar had died due to head injury caused by
firearm. Statements of witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.
Harendra Singh and Indraveer Singh in their statements recorded under Section
161 of CrPC on 23.04.2023 alleged that Arvind @ Veechka was present on spot
along with other co-accused. Suresh had fired on Situ @ Vijay Sikarwar. There
was no allegation of gunfire against the applicant. Later, statements of Sanman
Singh, Lallaram Singh and Gar Singh were recorded on 04.07.2023 and
07.07.2023 respectively, wherein they alleged that Arvind had fired bullet and
inflicted injury to Situ @ Vijay. These three witnesses exonerated other accused
Arun, Ramvilas, Rambhajan(present applicant), Suresh, Balster and stated that
they were not present on the spot of incident. The trial court conducted
proceedings under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., accordingly, the present applicant
has been arrested.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has been implicated in
this case on the basis of the proceedings conducted under Section 319 of the
Cr.P.C. The trial court issued the arrest warrant and then the applicant surrendered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10988
3 MCRC-13301-2026
before the trial court and was taken into custody. There is material contraction in
the statements of material prosecution witnesses and other independent witnesses.
There is no overt act attributable to the present applicant. The co-accused persons
namely-Rajbahadur@Munna and Arvind@Veechka have already been enlarged
on bail vide order dated 22.09.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.34544/2023 and
M.Cr.C. No.45697/2023 dated 11.03.2024 respectively. The case and act of the
present applicant is similar to those of the co-accused persons. The applicant does
not bear any criminal record. He is permanent resident of District Morena and
there is no possibility of his absconsion, therefore, custodial interrogation is not
required. Hence, the case of applicant for bail may be considered.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail
application and prayed for its rejection.
5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and on the
ground of parity with the co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail, but
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed
and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal
Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the applicant:-
i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond
executed by him/her;
ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation /trial, as the case may
be;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10988
4 MCRC-13301-2026
iii) The applicant will not indulge himself /herself in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such acts to the Court or to the Police Officer,
as the case may be;
iv) The applicant will not commit any other offence or will not repeat the
offence in future. In case offence of same nature is repeated, this bail order shall
automatically stand cancelled;
v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
and
vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Rashid
