[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramashankar Shah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255
1 CRR-200-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 200 of 2026
RAMASHANKAR SHAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Naveriya - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Nitu Pariney - Panel Lawyer for the State of M.P.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
This revision is admitted for final hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this revision is
heard finally.
2. This revision is filed for against the order dated 10.1.2026 passed by
learned J.M.F.C., Singrauli, M.P. in R.C.T. No.318 of 2025 whereby an
application under Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. 2023 has been dismissed.
3. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State supports the impugned order
and prays for rejection of default bail application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of default bail
under Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. (new provisions under Section 480 (6) of
B.N.S.S. 2023).
5. It is seen that the charges were framed against the applicant who is
in District Jail- Pachore and was appearing through V.C. on 19.8.2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255
2 CRR-200-2026
under Section 309 (4) and Section 351 (3) of B.N.S.S. (old Section 392 and
Section 506 of IPC) respectively.
6. Thereafter the first date of evidence was 26.8.2025 and on that day
as seen from the copy of order sheet nothing has been mentioned about
service of summons which were issued on 19.8.2025 against witnesses
namely Krishnamati Kushwaha, Lale Kushwaha, Phulau Kushwaha and
Shankardayal Kushwaha and simply has been mentioned on 26.8.2025 that
summons to be issued against above mentioned witnesses and case was
adjourned to 8.9.2025. On 8.9.2025 it was mentioned that the case is fixed
for prosecution witnesses but they are not present but it is seen that no
speaking order sheet has been written regarding whether the summons were
received back or not. If they were received back what was the noting in the
summons whether they were served or unserved or witnesses not found.
Again case was posted to 18.9.2025 for recording statements of prosecution
witnesses and on 18.9.2025 again it was mentioned that witnesses nos. 1 to 3
to be summoned through summons. Case was posted for 27.9.2025. On that
day one witness namely Krishnamati Kushwaha was present. Her
examination-in-chief was conducted but cross-examination was deferred as
the time of the court was over. Other witnesses were summons through
summons. On the next date i.e. on 7.10.2025 the witness Krishnamati
Kushwaha appeared but it is simply mentioned that witness is being bound
over for the next date as the court is busy in other cases and the case was
adjourned for 16.10.2025. On 16.10.2025 the witness Krishnamati
Kushwaha was present. She was cross examined and thereafter the case was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255
3 CRR-200-2026
adjourned for recording statements of other prosecution witnesses to
30.10.2025. On 28.10.2025 an application under Section 480 of B.N.S.S.
2023 was filed which as rejected by learned trial court.
7. On 30.10.2025 the prosecution witnesses Babunandan Kushwaha,
Phulau Kushwaha, Shankardayal Kushwaha were present. Statements of
Babunandan Kushwaha was recorded and thereafter statements of Phulau
Kushwaha till Para-2 were recorded and as the time of the court was over
therefore cross-examination could not be conducted. The witnesses-Phulau
Kushwaha and Shankardayal Kushwaha were bound over for the next date
i.e. on 11.11.2025 and other witnesses Sant Kumar Shah, Atmaram Rajak
Ramniwas Shah and Arun Kumar Vaishya, Randheer Singh were summoned
through summons.
8. On 11.11.2025 no prosecution witness was present and again
summons were issued against the prosecution witnesses. The case was fixed
for 25.11.2025. On 25.11.2025 the witness Arun Kumar Vaishya was present
and witness - Phulau Kushwaha was absent. Therefore against Sant Kumar
Shah, Atmaram Rajak and Randhir Singh were bounded over. The witness
- Phulau Kushwaha were summoned through bailable warrant of Rs.500/-.
The case was fixed to 3.12.2025. Thereafter the witness - Sant Kumar Shah
appeared on the same date. His statements were recorded. On 3.12.2025
evidence of Randhir Singh ( PW-7) was recorded. The witness - Phulau
Kushwaha was absent and Sant Kumar Shah and Atmaram Rajak were
bounded over witness- Phulau Kushwaha were directed to be summoned
through bailable warrant of Rs.500/- each and the case was posted on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255
4 CRR-200-2026
12.12.2025. On 12.12.2025 nothing has been mentioned about receipt of
summons or bailable warrant against the witnesses and simply it has been
mentioned that bailable warrant of Rs.500/- be issued against Sant
Atmaram Atmaram and Phulau Kushwaha. The case was posted for
26.12.2025 on which date the Presiding Officer was on leave. Therefore the
statements could not be recorded. In the order sheet dated 26.12.2025, it is
also mentioned that the prosecution witnesses are not present therefore let
them be summoned as per order before and the case was fixed for 8.1.2026.
On 8.1.2026 the prosecution witnesses - Shankardayal was present. He was
examined. The witness - Phulau Kushwaha was absent and therefore
bailable warrant was issued against Phulau Kushwaha and Atmaram Rajak
and the witnesses - Sant Kumar and Rambahori were summoned through
summons.
9. On 10.1.2026 an application under Section 480 (6) of B.N.N.S.
2023 was filed which was rejected by the trial court on the same day.
Learned trial court mentioned while disposing of the application that the
incident is of 25.7.2024 in the afternoon when in the forest prosecutrix
Krishmati was stopped on her way by the accused and the accused
Ramashankar Shah and committed a loot of her ornaments and also threated
her.
10. Learned trial court has mentioned that in M.Cr.C. No.57947 of
2025 the appellant - accused withdrew the revision and learned trial was
directed to consider the bail application on merits without considering the
fact that this High Court has dismissed the bail application.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255
5 CRR-200-2026
11. Thereafter court proceeded to dispose of the application on merits
holding that earlier bail application was rejected and since there is no change
circumstances. Accordingly third application is rejected.
12, Now the order dated 10.1.2026 passed by learned J.M.F.C.,
Singrauli, M.P. in R.C.T. No.318 of 2025 is under challenge before this
court.
13. Learned counsel for the revisioner submits that the application for
default bail is Annexure A-3 from page-12 to page 15 in which paga no.14
and 15 are his affidavits.
14. It is seen that although in the heading the application has been
filed under Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. but in the body of the application
clear pleading is not made. Therefore, two things are very clear that for the
first time although the application was filed under Section 480 (6) of
B.N.S.S. but in such application the simple ground of not disposing of the
case in the light of provision under Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. is mentioned
which is read as under :-
480. When bail may be taken in case of non - bailable offence :-
(1) ...........................................................................................................................
(2) ...........................................................................................................................
(3) ..........................................................................................................................
(4) ..........................................................................................................................
(5) .........................................................................................................................
(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non -
bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for
taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the
said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255
6 CRR-200-2026
recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs."
15. Therefore it seems that on account of the pleadings in the
application like that he is in jail for six months, he is very poor and offence
is not punishable with death sentence some confusion perhaps has crept into
the logic of the learned Trial Court Judge. It is also seen that while
disposing of M.Cr.C. No.57947 of 2025 on 9.1.2026 the applicant withdrew
the aforesaid M.Cr.C. with the liberty to file an application before the
learned Magistrate under Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. and accordingly
M.Cr.C. was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty that if the bail
application is filed before the Magistrate Court under Section 480 (6) of the
B.N.S.S. 2023 then it has to be considered on merit.
16. Therefore it seems that learned trial court has not understood the
real purpose of the order of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court.
17. Even otherwise it is settled proposition of law that correct a
interpretation of the application has to be applied although the ground of
Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S.was not mentioned but the application was filed
under that provision and it was even referred into the order of Hon'ble
Coordinate Bench of this Court. It shall be referred by learned Magistrate
therefore the order of Magistrate cannot be allowed to be sustained and is
accordingly set aside by allowing the application for grant of default bail.
18. As the trial court has not been completed within 60 days from the
first date of the evidence after framing of the charges, order dated 10.1.2026
passed by learned J.M.F.C., Singrauli, M.P. in R.C.T. No.318 of 2025 is set
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255
7 CRR-200-2026
aside and the default bail is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing a
personal of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only) alongwith one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial the applicant shall be released on
bail.
19. This revision is disposed of.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
bks
