[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4612
1 MCRC-5453-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5453 of 2026
ANIL AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shashwat Rao - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This is the first application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory
bail in connection with Crime No.03 of 2026 registered at Police Station
Jigna, District Datia (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 110,
105, 296, 125, 3(5), 118(2) of BNS, 2023.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 02.01.2026 at about 8:00 PM,
the wife of the complainant Rajendra's neighbor Ravi Ahirwar was pouring
water in front of the complainant's house. The complainant objected and
asked her not to pour water there. At that time, Ramdas Ahirwar, Ravi
Ahirwar, Anil Ahirwar (present applicant), and Jasrath Ahirwar, neighbors of
the complainant, were warming themselves near a fire in front of Ravi's
shop. Meanwhile, the complainant's younger brother Rohit also came there
to warm himself. Ravi caught hold of Rohit, abused him with obscene insults
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4612
2 MCRC-5453-2026
involving his mother and sister, and stated that they would pour water there
only. When Rohit shouted, the complainant Rajendra came out of the house,
rescued his brother, and took him away. Thereafter, Ravi, from the roof of
his house, started pelting pieces of gumma (brick/stone pieces). One piece
struck the head of the complainant's father Mattu. Anil (present applicant)
threw a piece of gumma which hit Seema Ahirwar on her right leg. Jasrath
threw a piece of gumma which struck Rashmi, the wife of Rohit. Ramdas
threw a piece of gumma which hit the complainant Rajendra above his left
cheek, causing injuries to them. At the spot, Dayakishor intervened and
attempted to pacify the matter. The injured Mattu was taken by ambulance to
the District Hospital, from where he was referred to Jhansi for further
treatment. During treatment at Jhansi, Mattu Ahirwar succumbed to his
injuries and died. On the basis of the above report, alleged crime was
registered against the applicant and other co-accused. During the course of
investigation, Section 118(2) BNS was subsequently added.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to neighbourhood rivalry and that
his role has been deliberately overstated. It is contended that even if the
entire prosecution story is accepted at its face value, the same does not
disclose any intention or knowledge on the part of the applicant to cause the
death of deceased Mattu Ahirwar. The incident admittedly arose out of a
trivial dispute regarding pouring of water and escalated suddenly, clearly
demonstrating absence of premeditation or prior planning. It is further
submitted that as per the prosecution version itself, the fatal injury was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4612
3 MCRC-5453-2026
allegedly caused by co-accused Ravi Ahirwar, who from the roof of his
house threw a piece of gumma which struck the head of the deceased Mattu
Ahirwar. No role whatsoever has been attributed to the present applicant in
causing any injury to the deceased. The only allegation against the applicant
is that he threw a piece of gumma which allegedly struck Seema Ahirwar on
her right leg. It is further submitted that the injury allegedly caused by the
present applicant to Seema Ahirwar is stated to be simple in nature, not
grievous, and not dangerous to life. The medical evidence clearly supports
the defence version that the said injury was minor and does not attract the
ingredients of any serious offence. Thus, the alleged act of the applicant does
not have any direct, indirect, or proximate connection with the death of the
deceased Mattu Ahirwar. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients
of Section 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are conspicuously absent
so far as the applicant is concerned, as there is neither intention nor
knowledge attributable to him to cause death or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death. The applicant was not armed with any deadly weapon,
and the alleged act was, at best, a spontaneous reaction during a sudden
quarrel. It is further submitted that there was no pre-meeting of minds or
common intention shared by the applicant with the co-accused to commit any
offence resulting in death. Mere presence at the spot or a minor act causing a
simple injury cannot justify the invocation of common intention or common
object against the applicant. There is no likelihood of his absconding or
tampering with prosecution witnesses. The applicant is ready and willing to
cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions that may be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4612
4 MCRC-5453-2026
imposed by this Court. Accordingly, anticipatory bail is sought.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the
counsel for the complainant opposed the application and prayed for its
rejection by contending that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, no
case for anticipatory bail is made out.
Considering the overall facts and cirrcumstances of the case, as well as
the fact that the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of
the applicant fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit
of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this Court, without
commenting on the merits of the case, is of the opinion that the applicant
deserves to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this
application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant
shall be released on anticipatory bail upon 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 Arresting Officer, 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;
ii) The applicant will cooperate in the
investigation/trial, as the case may be;
iii) The applicant will not indulge herself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4612
5 MCRC-5453-2026
may be;
vi) The applicant will not seek unnecessary
adjournments during the trial;
v) The applicant will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case
may be.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
