[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Thakurdas Dohare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4875
1 MCRC-5683-2026
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. 5683 of 2026
THAKURDAS DOHARE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Surendra Singh Dhakad - Advocate for applicants.
Ms Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State,
Shri Ashutosh Pandey - Advocate for respondent [COMP].
ORDER
This is first application under Section 482 of BNSS filed by the applicants
for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.96/2025
registered at Police Station- Godan District Datia for offence punishable under
Sections 296, 115(2), 118(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS.
As per prosecution case, on 29.12.2025 at about 3:00 PM, Bhadr Singh
Dohre, Kallu Dohre, Pappu Dohre, and Inderjit Singh Dohre were clearing space
in the complainant Manoj Yadav's field for storing agricultural produce, the
complainant's mother Darshani objected to them. Upon this, all four accused
started arguing with her. At the same time, Jyoti and Mithla also arrived at the
spot and pushed Darshani Yadav, as a result of which she fell down and sustained
blunt injuries on her waist and chest. Hearing the noise of the quarrel, when the
complainant Manoj reached there, the accused persons Bhadr Singh, Pappu,
Kallu, Inderjit, Thakur Dohre, Sirovan Dohre, and Chhote Raja alias Chandrapal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4875
2 MCRC-5683-2026
Dohre assaulted him with kicks, fists, and an axe, due to which the index finger of
his left hand was severed and separated and he suffered injuries on various parts of
his body. Further, accused Bhadr Singh abused the complainant with obscene
words and also threatened to kill him.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent
and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that a minor
dispute had arisen between the applicants' side and the complainant's side with
regard to the making/placing of cow-dung cakes in front of the applicants' house,
pursuant to which the alleged incident occurred. The incident was not pre-planned
and arose out of a sudden quarrel. It is further submitted that, as per the
prosecution story itself, there is no allegation that the applicants caused any
grievous injury to the victim, nor any specific or overt act is attributed to them.
The allegations levelled against the applicants are vague, general and omnibus in
nature. Learned counsel further submits that the incident was in the nature of a
free fight and that a cross-case has also been registered arising out of the same
occurrence, bearing Crime No. 95/2025, registered for offences under Sections
296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(द),
3(1)(ध) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. It is also submitted that co-accused Jyoti Dohare and Mithla
Dohare have already been extended the benefit of bail by this Hon'ble Court vide
order dated 28.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3310 of 2026. Learned counsel
further submits that the investigation/trial is likely to take considerable time to
conclude. The applicants are permanent residents of District Datia and there is no
likelihood of their absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. The
applicants undertake to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4875
3 MCRC-5683-2026
this Hon'ble Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the applicants
on anticipatory bail, in the interest of justice.
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.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
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
applicants fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of
anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Accordingly, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants
shall be released on anticipatory bail upon each of them 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 Arresting Authority/Investigating
Officer.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the applicants :-
(1). The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by them;
(2). The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/ trial, as the case may
be;
(3). The applicants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4875
4 MCRC-5683-2026
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,
as the case may be;
(4). The applicants shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of
which they are accused;
(5). The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
(6). The applicants will not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
(7) The applicants shall not be source of harassment and embarrassment to
the complainant party in any manner and shall not move in their vicinity and if
any harassment and embarrassment is caused by the applicants to the complainant
side, then benefit of bail shall be immediately withdrawn.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court/Police Station concerned for
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
