[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6799
1 MCRC-8674-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8674 of 2026
VIJAY GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Kalpana Parmar - GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. His first bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 03.02.2026 in M.Cr.C. No.4578/2026.
The applicant has been arrested on 31.12.2025 by Police Station-
Maharajpura, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.552/2025,
registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 109(1), 3(5) of
BNS.
The allegation against the present applicant is that he, in furtherance of
common intention and in concert with the co-accused persons, assaulted the
victim by means of kicks and fists.
In the bail application it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has not committed any
offence. It is further submitted that the role attributed to the present applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6799
2 MCRC-8674-2026
is identical to that of the co-accused, namely Ajeet Singh and Arvind Gurjar,
who have already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 7261/2026
and 8355/2026 vide orders dated 12.02.2026 and 19.02.2026. On the ground
of parity, prayer for grant of bail is made out in the bail application.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application
and prayed for its rejection submitting that the applicant has criminal history
of 03 cases of similar nature.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and nature
of allegations and looking to the factum of parity withy the co-accused
persons, 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.
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 local 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.
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 bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6799
3 MCRC-8674-2026
may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge themselves 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;
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
neetu
