[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11592
1 MCRC-15900-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15900 of 2026
LOKENDRA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Atul Kumar Sharma - PP for the State.
Shri Rajmani Bansal- Advocate for complainant.
ORDER
This Second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been
filed by the applicant for grant of bail.
2. The applicant has been arrested on 18.10.2023 in connection with
Crime No.524/2023 registered at Police Station Janak Ganj District Gwalior
for offences under Sections 302, 307, 294, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149 of IPC
and Section 25, 25(2) and 27 of Arms Act.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons due to some
previous rivalry assaulted informant's brother Lokendra Rathore, who later
called the informant on the spot. The applicant & other accused persons then
abused informant and his brother and threatened them of dire consequences
at their residence and when they reached their residence, Kamlesh Sharma
who was having a country made pistol, Suraj Sharma having baka, Satyadev
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11592
2 MCRC-15900-2026
Prakash having palta, Raja @ Rajesh Bhadoriya, Subedar Pal and Virendra
Sharma carrying wooden stick came to their house, abused them and when
the informant's brother Dilip intervened and prevented, the accused persons
from abusing, Kamlesh Sharma caught hold of the hands of Dilip and
Lokendra Sharma (present applicant) fired with an intent to commit murder
and as a result, Dilip sustained bullet injury on his back and fell down. It is
further stated in the complaint that Subedar Pal and Virendra Sharma who
had come with wooden sticks had assaulted the brothers with the sticks and
Satyadev Prakash had assaulted them with kicks and fists and after hue and
cry was raised, they left the scene of crime. The courts-below have declined
to grant' the regular bail to the applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. The co-
accused Kamlesh Sharma has already been enlarged on bail by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.12663/2026 and co-accused persons namely- Suraj Sharma and Virendra
Sharma have been granted bail by this Court, therefore, the applicant seeks
parity also. The applicant is an army personnel and has no criminal
antecedents. There are total 41 witnesses of prosecution, but even after lapse
of a long time, only nine witnesses have been examined. However, material
prosecution have been examined,therefore, there is no apprehension of
tampering with prosecution evidence. The witnesses are not turning up for
deposition. He has suffered considerable pretrial confinement and the trial is
likely to take considerable time to conclude. The charge-sheet has already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11592
3 MCRC-15900-2026
been filed and charges have also been framed. In these circumstances and on
the ground of parity, delay in trial and pretrial custody period, it is prayed
that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed
the bail application and prayed for its rejection. Learned counsel for the
complainant also vehemently opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection
by submitting that there is sufficient material available in the case diary to
implicate the present applicant.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this
court finds that the present applicant fired with the firearms and the bullet hit
the deceased due to which he died. The other co-accused had not fired with
the firearms, hence, no ground of parity is made out.
7. This is also evident that the deceased sustained only one gunshot
injury, and due to which he died, hence, it is established that the present
applicant is the main accused of the case.
8. Hence, looking to the contents of case diary, nature and gravity of
offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail.
9 .Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
