[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhola Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5029
1 MCRC-6344-2026
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. 6344 of 2026
BHOLA GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Katare - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This is the first application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. He has been arrested on 21.02.2025 in connection
with Crime No.28 of 2025 by Police Station Umri, District Bhind (MP) for
the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 132, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 read
with Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution story, on the intervening night of 20-
21.02.2025, Inspector Shivpratap Singh Rajawat of Police Station Umri
received secret information through an informer that the accused persons
involved in Crime No. 27/2025 of Police Station Umri might be moving in
and around the police station limits. The said information was conveyed to
senior officers, and necessary directions were obtained. Pursuant to the
orders of the Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CSP In-charge Deepak Tomar, along with the force from his office; the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5029
2 MCRC-6344-2026
Station House Officer, Kotwali, Brijendra Singh Sengar, with his police
force; the Station House Officer, Bharoli, Girish Sharma, with his police
force; and the Station House Officer, Nayagaon, Sohanish Tomar, with his
police force, assembled at Police Station Umri. The DSP Headquarters
constituted three teams --Team A, Team B, and Team C--and dispatched
them to different areas for searching the accused persons. During the course
of checking, at about 04:00 AM, information was received that Team A, led
by Inspector Brijendra Singh Sengar along with his accompanying force, was
chasing a suspicious blue Hyundai i10 car bearing registration number MP-
07/CL-1883, which was suspected to be carrying the accused persons Bhola,
Anuj, and Gajendra. For the purpose of arresting the said accused, Inspector
Shivpratap Singh Rajawat, along with Sub-Inspector Amit Sikarwar, Station
House Officer Nayagaon Sub-Inspector Sohanish Tomar, and other police
personnel, proceeded towards Gram Rur Bochra, Vilay, Sikahata, and further
towards Nunhata, to lay a cordon. When Team B reached near village
Sikahata ahead of Vilay and began search and blockade operations, Team C
and the night patrol officer also arrived from behind. A suspicious car was
then seen speeding from the direction of village Nunhata, with the police
vehicle of Team A following it. Team B and Team C attempted to block the
road and stop the vehicle. While attempting to block the road with police
vehicles, the driver of the suspicious car diverted the vehicle towards the
embankment (har) of village Sikahata, causing the car to get stuck in a ditch.
The accused persons alighted from the car and started fleeing. Teams A, B,
and C chased the accused to apprehend them. During the chase, the three
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5029
3 MCRC-6344-2026
accused, one after another, fired at the police party with the intention to kill.
One bullet struck the official vehicle of the DSP. Despite repeated warnings
and instructions by the team leaders for the accused to surrender, the accused
again fired shots towards the police party. In retaliatory action, in exercise of
the right of self-defence, the DSP fired one round, Inspector Shivpratap
Singh Rajawat fired one round, the Station House Officer Bharoli fired one
round, the Station House Officer Nayagaon fired one round, and the Station
House Officer Kotwali fired one round from their respective service pistols.
Thereafter, the police team heard the accused shouting that they had
sustained gunshot injuries. On this, the DSP ordered the cessation of firing
and instructed the teams to advance cautiously. Upon searching the area
using a searchlight from behind an earthen mound, two accused were found
lying at a short distance, groaning in pain, with bleeding visible from their
legs. On being asked their names and addresses, they disclosed their
identities as Anuj Rajawat, son of Shivbhan Rajawat, resident of
Bagiyapura, Police Station Raun, and Bhola Gurjar, son of Nathoo Gurjar,
resident of Parsen, Gwalior. They admitted their involvement in the offence,
expressed their willingness to surrender, and requested to be taken to the
hospital at the earliest. Accordingly, they were sent to the hospital under the
supervision of Team A and accompanying police personnel. Upon further
inspection of the ditch, another accused was found, who disclosed his name
as Gajendra Bhadauria, son of Vain Singh Bhadauria, resident of Raipura
Machhand. He stated that he had not been hit by a bullet and had sustained
injuries due to falling from the car. From the possession of accused Gajendra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5029
4 MCRC-6344-2026
Bhadauria, one country-made pistol (katta), one empty cartridge case, and
one live cartridge of .315 bore were seized. On inspection of the place of
occurrence, two .315 bore country-made pistols, two empty cartridge cases,
two live cartridges, blood-stained soil, and plain soil were seized. Thereafter,
on returning to the police station, Crime No. 28/2025 was registered at Police
Station Umri against the accused persons under Sections 109(1), 132, and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. After completion of investigation, the
charge-sheet was filed before the Court, which was registered as Sessions
Case No. 49/2025 and is presently pending trial before this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and has been made an accused on the
basis of a routine and exaggerated police version. Even if the prosecution
story is taken at its face value, the same does not disclose any specific overt
act attributable to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the
applicant has sustained a gunshot injury on his leg, which is admittedly a
non-vital part of the body. This circumstance itself indicates that the
applicant was not posing any imminent threat to the police party.
Significantly, despite the serious allegation that the accused persons
repeatedly fired upon the police with an intention to kill, not a single injury
has been caused to any member of the police party. No injury report of any
police personnel has been placed on record, which renders the prosecution
story of a life-threatening attack highly doubtful and exaggerated. It is further
submitted that no firearm, ammunition, or any other incriminating article has
been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. All alleged
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5029
5 MCRC-6344-2026
recoveries have been shown only from the co-accused Gajendra Bhadauria.
The role attributed to the applicant is thus vague, general, and omnibus, and
does not justify his continued incarceration. It is also submitted that the
entire prosecution case rests solely on the statements of police officials, who
are interested witnesses. No independent public witness has been cited or
examined, despite the alleged incident having taken place in an open area
near villages, which seriously dents the credibility of the prosecution version.
The applicant is in custody since 20.02.2025. It is further submitted that the
investigation in the present case has already been completed and the charge-
sheet has been filed. No further custodial interrogation of the applicant is
required, and his continued detention would serve no useful purpose. The
trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and continued
incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible
in law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further
submitted that 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 and prayed for its rejection, considering the nature and gravity of
the offence, as well as the fact that the applicant has as many as eighteen
criminal antecedents.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5029
6 MCRC-6344-2026
keeping in view the fact that 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
i s 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5029
7 MCRC-6344-2026
(vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case
may be.
(v) The applicant shall mark his presence before the
concerned Station House Officer of the concerned Police
Station once every fortnight (i.e., every fifteen days) between
10:00 AM and 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
