[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Haricharan Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5226
1 MCRC-6642-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 10 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6642 of 2026
HARICHARAN DHAKAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - GA for the respondent/State.
Shri D. S. Rajawat - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
This is first application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail.
2. The applicant has been arrested on 19.12.2025 in relation to Crime
No.303/2025 registered at Police Station - Bamori, District Guna (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 191(3), 296 (B), 329(2),
109(1), 324(4), 49, 115(2) of BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Hari Singh Dhakad,
lodged a report on December 19, 2025, stating that at around 4:30 PM, he, along
with his maternal uncle's son Sagar, Kedarlal, and Shivnarayan, and his paternal
uncle Shankarlal Dhakad, was sitting at home. Thereafter, Avdhesh Dhakad,
Haricharan Dhakad, Prakash Dhakad, Mohan Prasad Dhakad, Sanjeev, Abhishek,
and other persons came to their house in two white cars, armed with sticks, iron
rods, axes, and chain-like weapons, and started abusing them due to an old rivalry.
When they refused to tolerate the abuse, all the accused persons attacked them
with the intention to kill. Prakash Dhakad hit the complainant on his left hand
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5226
2 MCRC-6642-2026
with an axe. Others also assaulted him, causing a blunt injury to his back. Sanjeev
Dhakad hit Shivnarayan on the back with a sword. Mohan Dhakad hit Kedarlal on
his left hand with an iron rod, causing a blunt injury. Haricharan hit Sagar with an
axe, causing a blunt injury to his right elbow. When complainant's grandfather
Shankarlal came to save them, Avdhesh hit on his head with a chain-sprocket-like
weapon. Abhishek Dhakad also assaulted the complainant with a blunt
object. Then these people entered the houses of Raju Dhakad and Arvind Dhakad
and vandalized the motorcycles. When the villagers started gathering, they all
fled.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that
according to the prosecution case, the applicant is alleged to have caused a simple
injury to Sagar's hand with a stick. The charge under Section 109(1) B.N.S.
pertains to the injury allegedly caused to Shankarlal, which, as per the prosecution
itself, was inflicted by co-accused Avdhesh Dhakad when Shankarlal intervened.
Medical evidence does not attribute the injury under Section 109(1) B.N.S. to the
present applicant. It is further submitted that the complainant's side had illegally
occupied the community centre land, which was removed by order of the S.D.M.
Construction work was being carried out pursuant to the Collector's orders when,
on 19.12.2025, the complainant's side allegedly attacked the applicant's side with
sticks, rods, and axes, causing injuries, damage to property, and obstruction of
government work. A counter-report was lodged by the applicant's side, and due to
this enmity, the applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant is a 65-year-
old permanent resident of District Guna and has been in custody since 19.12.2025
and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. The applicant is
permanent resident of District Guna and, therefore, there is no likelihood of their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5226
3 MCRC-6642-2026
absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that
co-accused, namely, Kailash Dhakad has already been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 22.01.2026 in M.Cr.C. No. 2388/2026. On these grounds, it is
prayed that the applicant be extended the benefit of bail.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the
complainant have vehemently opposed the application and prayed for rejection of
present bail application.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by both 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.
8. Accordingly, without commenting on merits of the case, this bail
application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on
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.
9. This order will remain operative 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
them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5226
4 MCRC-6642-2026
may be;
iv. The applicant shall not commit any 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.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
11. Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
