[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajmat Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5011
1 MCRC-6384-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6384 of 2026
AJMAT KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Verma - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This is the fourth application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. He has been arrested on 22.06.2025 by Police Station
Janakganj, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.290 of 2025, registered
in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 75(2), 137(2), 296 of BNS,
2023 and Section 9M/10 of the POCSO Act. His ealier application was dismissed
on merits by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.No.51252
of 2025.
As per the prosecution story, an offence has been registered against the
accused for allegedly calling the 08-year-old victim into his house and committing
an inappropriate and unlawful act upon her. It is further alleged that when the
victim's mother confronted him, the accused used obscene and abusive language
and issued threats.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case and has been in custody since 21.06.2025. It is
further submitted that about two months prior to the alleged incident, the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5011
2 MCRC-6384-2026
had a dispute with the mother of the prosecutrix, during which she allegedly
threatened to lodge a false report against him and have him sent to jail. Owing to
this prior enmity, the applicant and his family have been unnecessarily roped into
the present matter. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix and her mother have
already been examined before the Trial Court on 20.11.2025, and their depositions
reveal material contradictions and inconsistencies, both inter se and vis-à-vis their
statements recorded during the course of investigation. Such contradictions go to
the root of the matter and substantially dent the credibility of the prosecution case,
which is a relevant consideration at the stage of bail. Learned counsel further
submits that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version, as no
internal or external injuries have been found on the prosecutrix. It is also submitted
that, even on a plain reading of the FIR and the statements available on record, and
without entering into the merits of the case, the allegations do not prima facie
satisfy the essential ingredients of "sexual assault" as defined under Section 7 of
the POCSO Act. In the absence of any allegation disclosing sexual intent or
physical contact of a sexual nature, the invocation of Sections 9M and 10 of the
POCSO Act is clearly unwarranted at this stage. The prosecution has failed to
demonstrate the foundational facts necessary to attract the said aggravated
provisions, and consequently, the maximum punishment contemplated thereunder
is not attracted in the present case. It is further submitted that the investigation has
already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent
Court. In view thereof, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is
required, and his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. Rather, it
would amount to pre-trial punishment, particularly when the trial is likely to take a
considerable time for its conclusion. Learned counsel also submits that the
applicant is a 40-year-old man whose father has passed away, and he is the sole
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5011
3 MCRC-6384-2026
earning member of his family, comprising his aged mother, wife, and two minor
children, whom he supports through daily wage labour. The applicant is a
permanent resident of District Gwalior, and there is no likelihood of his
absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready and willing to
abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. With these
submissions, a prayer for grant of bail is made.
Conversely, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the
application, praying for its rejection, looking to the nature and gravity of offence.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in view the facts that the applicant is in custody
since 22.06.2025, investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has been
filed, the trial is not likely to conclude in the 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 commenting on
merits of the case, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant
be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the concerned trial Court for his appearance before it on the dates given by the
concerned Court, 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 himself in extending
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5011
4 MCRC-6384-2026
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
iv) 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;
(v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments
during the trial; and
(vi) 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*
