[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4952
1 MCRC-6239-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6239 of 2026
RAHUL RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This is second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. His earlier bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to renew his prayer after recording of Court statement
of complainant/injured vide order dated 11.11.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.51597 of 2025 by this Court.
The applicant has been arrested on 23.09.2025 in connection with
Crime No.247/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Chhawni District
Gwalior for offences under Sections 109(1), 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of
BNS enhanced Section 117 (2) of BNS.
As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, while
driving his four-wheeler, struck the complainant Akhilesh and his nephew
Saurabh with the vehicle and thereafter, along with co-accused persons,
assaulted them with sticks, thereby causing injuries.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4952
2 MCRC-6239-2026
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence
whatsoever. It is further submitted that the prosecution case suffers from
serious infirmities and apparent fabrication of evidence. As per the record, a
pen-drive was allegedly prepared on 21.08.2025 and seized on the same date,
whereas the DVR, being the original source from which the pen-drive is
stated to have been prepared, was seized subsequently on 22.10.2025. This
fact has also emerged in the testimony of the concerned witness. Moreover,
the panchnama of the video footage is dated 19.08.2025. Under these
circumstances, it is manifest that the chronology of seizure and preparation is
inherently contradictory and renders the prosecution version highly doubtful,
clearly indicating fabrication. Additionally, the video footage panchnama
itself has already been objected to, as it neither depicts the alleged incident
nor contains any identification of the applicant. Even otherwise, the second
injured witness, namely Saurabh, has stated that the vehicle hit them thrice,
which is not corroborated by the alleged video footage. A perusal of the
challan papers further reflects serious inconsistencies with regard to the
seizure of the DVR, preparation and seizure of the pen-drive, and preparation
of the panchnamas, which cumulatively demonstrate manipulation and
concoction of evidence. The applicant has been in judicial custody since
23.09.2025. The trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. The
applicant is a permanent resident of District Gwalior and there is no
likelihood of his absconding, tampering with prosecution evidence, or
influencing any witness. The applicant undertakes to abide by all terms and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4952
3 MCRC-6239-2026
conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. In view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to enlarge the applicant on bail in the interest of justice.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail
application, submitting that the injuries sustained by the victims are serious
in nature and duly supported by medical evidence. In view of the gravity of
offence and the manner of commission, learned counsel for the State prays
for dismissal of present bail application.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties coupled with the fact
that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre- trial
detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined
to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case,
this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by
the concerned Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicant:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4952
4 MCRC-6239-2026
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,
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;
4 . The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency
of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically,
without further reference to the Bench;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per ruels.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
