[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banti Patvaar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4642
1 MCRC-5016-2026
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. 5016 of 2026
BANTI PATVAAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Daya Ram Sharma - 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.260 of 2023 registered at Police Station
Kampoo, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections
326-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC.
As per the case of the prosecution, the incident occurred on 12.06.2023
at about 02:00 PM. The complainant Anil Shakya was coming to his home at
Gudi Gudda Naka from Bada in his auto-rickshaw bearing registration
number MP-07-R-8625. When he stopped his auto near Dharmendra Dairy
to purchase some goods, his brother-in-law Manoj Patwar, along with his
brother Bunty, came there. Due to previous enmity, both the accused, acting
with common intention, started abusing the complainant's mother and sister
in filthy language. When the complainant objected to the abuses, accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4642
2 MCRC-5016-2026
Bunty (present applicant) assaulted him by striking him on the head with an
iron rod, causing a head injury and profuse bleeding. Thereafter, co-accused
Manoj took out a bottle containing a liquid resembling acid from the pocket
of his pants, opened it, and threw it upon the complainant, which fell on his
right hand, resulting in severe burns and damage to the skin. Thus, the
complainant sustained injuries. Upon hearing the complainant's cries, nearby
persons gathered at the spot, witnessed the incident, and rescued him. Taking
advantage of the increasing crowd, both accused persons fled from the scene
while threatening that "today you have escaped, but if we meet again, we
will kill you." On the same day, i.e., 12.06.2023, the complainant Anil
Shakya, along with his father Kamal Shakya, appeared before Police Station
Kampoo and submitted a written report regarding the incident. On the basis
of such allegations, alleged crime was registered against accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to prior personal and family
rivalry. The allegations made in the FIR are highly exaggerated, concocted
and motivated, and have been levelled with an oblique motive to harass and
pressurize the applicant. The prosecution story, even if taken at its face value,
does not inspire confidence so far as the role attributed to the present
applicant is concerned. It is further submitted that no prima facie offence
under Section 326-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
applicant. As per the prosecution case itself, the alleged act of throwing the
acid-like substance has been attributed exclusively to co-accused Manoj
Patwar. There is not even a whisper in the FIR or case diary to suggest that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4642
3 MCRC-5016-2026
the present applicant was in possession of any acid or corrosive substance or
that he had thrown the same upon the complainant. In absence of such
specific allegations, the stringent provisions of Section 326-A IPC cannot be
invoked against the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the
allegations against the applicant are vague and omnibus in nature. Except for
a general allegation of assault, there is no specific, independent or
corroborative material to establish the active participation of the applicant in
the manner alleged. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent
evidence to substantiate the role of the applicant beyond mere assertions. It is
also submitted that the medical evidence does not fully support the
prosecution version. The nature of injuries mentioned in the medical
documents does not conclusively establish the use of an iron rod as alleged,
nor does it reflect injuries of such gravity as to attract the penal provisions
invoked against the applicant. The medical opinion does not firmly connect
the injuries to the alleged weapon. Learned counsel submits that the
invocation of Section 34 IPC is mechanical and unwarranted. The
prosecution has failed to establish any prior meeting of minds or common
intention between the applicant and the co-accused. Mere presence at the
spot, even if assumed for the sake of argument, does not attract Section 34
IPC in the absence of specific material indicating shared intention. It is
further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and
consultation, which casts a serious doubt on its spontaneity and genuineness.
The prosecution witnesses are interested and partisan, being closely related
to the complainant, and no independent public witness has come forward to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4642
4 MCRC-5016-2026
support the prosecution version in its entirety. It is further submitted that the
applicant is permanent resident of District Gwalior and there is no likelihood
of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he is
willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court.
Accordingly, anticipatory bail is sought.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4642
5 MCRC-5016-2026
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
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*
