[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahees Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11065
1 CRA-2601-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2601 of 2026
RAHEES KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Uma Kushwah - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Bhim Dutt Bharti - Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/State informs that in
compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 15-A of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , notice has been duly
served on the respondent No.2/complainant.
2. This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 A (2) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 against the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Special Judge
(Atrocities), Gwalior (M.P.), rejecting the regular bail application of the
appellant.
3. The appellant has been arrested on 29.12.2025 in connection with
Crime No.1256/2025 registered at Police Station - G.R.P. B.G., District
Gwalior (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 115
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11065
2 CRA-2601-2026
(2), 296 (B), 109 (1), 103 (1), 3 (5) of BNS and Section 3 (2) (5) of the
SC/ST Act and 25 (b) of Arms Act.
4 . The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.11.2025, at
Railway Station Dabra, deceased Golu and injured Manoj were assaulted
with a Knife by Vishal Jatav. Vishal Jatav, Ravi Jatav, Ansh Joshi, and three
other persons were also present on the spot, having their faced covered.
Subsequently, the investigation revealed that the present appellant was one of
the accused whose face was covered at the time of incident.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
complainant, Umesh Jaat, who took deceased Golu to the hospital, his
statement was recorded at the stage of post-mortem and at that stage, did not
reveal the name of the present appellant. There is no allegation of causing
fatal assault on the deceased against the present appellant. Learned counsel
submits that the investigation in the matter is complete and the trial is likely
to take some time. There is no direct allegation against the appellant to
connect him with the crime in question. Hence, she prays that the appellant
may be enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1/State as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2/complainant opposes the bail application and submits that at a
subsequent stage of investigation, the name of the present appellant,
alongwith Vikas and Akash, was revealed. The present applicant is having
criminal antecedents in two cases. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1/State submits that the bail application of the co-accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11065
3 CRA-2601-2026
Ravi Jatav in the matter has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.03.2026 in Cr.A.No.1593/2026.
7. In response, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, referring to
I.A.No.6728/2026, submits that in the earlier criminal cases, the appellant
has already been acquitted, and the orders of acquittal have been placed on
record and the co-accused Ravi Jatav was named in F.I.R.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
9. Looking to the fact that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R., and
the bail application which was withdrawn was filed by co-accused Ravi
Jatav, whose name finds mention in the F.I.R, this Court deems it proper to
allow the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, without
commenting anything on the merits of the case, the criminal appeal is
allowed and impugned order dated 12.03.2026 is hereby set aside.
10. It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court
concerned.
11. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the appellant :-
i) The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
ii) The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
may be;
iii) The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11065
4 CRA-2601-2026
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police
Officer, as the case may be;
iv) The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial;
v) The appellant 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;
vi) The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned.
13. With the aforesaid, present criminal appeal stands allowed and
disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
