Sonu Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 3476 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sonu Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 2026

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11884




                                                            1                             CRA-3122-2026
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                        BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
                                                  ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2026
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3122 of 2026
                                                   SONU YADAV
                                                      Versus
                                    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Dileep Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
                                  Mrs.Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

                                                                ORDER

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 sixth criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the Special Judge

(Atrocities), Vidisha (M.P.), whereby the application for grant of regular bail preferred by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been rejected. Earlier, five appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed as withdrawn by the Coordinate Benches of this Court.

3. The appellant has been arrested on 04.01.2025 in connection with Crime No.06/2024 registered at Police Station - Sironj, District Vidisha

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11884

2 CRA-3122-2026 (M.P.) for commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 452, 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 325, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 02.01.2024, an altercation took place between the appellant along with other co-accused persons and the deceased Karan and his wife over drawing water from a government tap. It is alleged that on the same day, in the evening, the appellant along with other co-accused persons entered the house of deceased and assaulted him with farsa and axe, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed during treatment. Consequently, the offence under Section 302 of IPC was also enhanced.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the

appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. He is in custody since 04.01.2025. He further submits that other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. By referring to the deposition of Dr. Manvir Singh Tomar (PW-7) recorded before the learned trial Court, it is contended that the injuries sustained by the deceased were likely caused by a hard and blunt object, whereas the allegation against the present appellant is of causing injuries by farsa. Thus, according to learned counsel, the medical evidence does not support the case of prosecution. On these grounds, prayer is made for grant of bail to the appellant.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the testimony of Guman Bai, wife of the deceased, is clear and specific against the present appellant. It is further

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11884

3 CRA-3122-2026 submitted that the medical evidence also indicates injury on the head of the deceased. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

8. Taking into consideration the evidence available on record, particularly the statements of prosecution witnesses, including the eyewitness Guman Bai, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

9. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.

(AMIT SETH) JUDGE

Adnan