[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6251
1 MCRC-8148-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8148 of 2026
PRADEEP GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pallav Tripathi - Advocate for applicant.
Ms Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Shiv Pratap Singh Kushwah - Advocate for respondent [COMP].
ORDER
This is first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail.
2. The applicant has been arrested on 17.01.2026 in connection with
Crime No.23/2026 registered at Police Station Morar District Gwalior for
offences under Sections 296(B), 115(2), 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1),
331(6) further added Section 61(2) of BNS.
3. As per prosecution case, on 12.01.2026, the complainant, Brij
Kishore Sharma, submitted a typed application at Police Station Morar
stating therein that Ashok Gurjar resides in the house situated opposite his
house. He alleged that on 06.01.2026 at approximately 09:00 PM, an
individual, Renu Gurjar, emerged from Ashok Gurjar's house and rang the
doorbell and struck the gate of the complainant's residence. Upon hearing the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6251
2 MCRC-8148-2026
commotion, the complainant's sister, Baijanti Sharma, went to the gate,
whereupon the said individual began hurling filthy and abusive insults. When
Baijanti Sharma objected to such abusive language, the said person gestured
and summoned 8-9 other unidentified individuals, who, acting in concert and
with the intention to kill, collectively assaulted Baijanti Sharma by kicking
and punching her and by striking her with sticks and iron rods.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
committed any offence as alleged in the present case. It is further submitted
that the present applicant has been made accused in the present case on the
basis of memorandum statement of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of
Evidence Act. The complainant has stated that the said incident occurred on
the night of 06/01/2026, and the complaint was lodged at the police station
seven days thereafter, on 12/01/2026, alleging that the offence was
committed by unknown persons. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take
considerable time. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Bhind
and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the
prosecution evidence. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to enlarge the
applicant on bail, in the interest of justice.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the
bail application and submitted that the present applicant has been arrayed as
an accused in the case on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-
accused Harendra. It is further submitted that the complainant has already
moved an application before the concerned Police Station alleging that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6251
3 MCRC-8148-2026
accused persons are pressurizing him to enter into a compromise. In view of
the seriousness of the allegations and the conduct attributed to the applicant,
it is prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposed the
bail application and adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the State.
It is submitted that the applicant does not deserve the indulgence of this
Hon'ble Court and that his release on bail may adversely affect the fair
course of investigation/trial. Accordingly, prayer has been made for rejection
of the bail application.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
8. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of
allegations 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6251
4 MCRC-8148-2026
bond executed by him;
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 rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
