[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pinki Uchadiya Alias Dhaniram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7478
1 MCRC-9647-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9647 of 2026
PINKI UCHADIYA ALIAS DHANIRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Dwivedi - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This is the fifth application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) filed by the applicant for grant of
bail. The applicant has been arrested on 24.12.2023 in connection Crime No.
788/2023 registered at Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior for
offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC.
As per proseuction case, the complainant, Neeraj Shakya, son of
Govind Shakya, aged 25 years, resident of Bhainsa Chauli Khasgi Bazar,
Taraganj, Gwalior, lodged a report against Pinki alias Dhaniram Uchadiya
(present applicant), son of Kailash Uchadiya, aged 38 years, resident of Bijli
Ghar Road, Gol Pahadiya, Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior. The
incident occurred on 23.12.2023 between 04:00 PM and 09:00 PM and the
information was given on 23.12.2023 at 11:50 PM to Inspector Vipendra
Singh Chauhan, Station House Officer, Police Station Janakganj, Gwalior.
The complainant Neeraj Shakya orally informed at the spot that his sister
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7478
2 MCRC-9647-2026
Khushboo used to talk on the phone with a boy named Shahrukh. Due to this
issue, there had been frequent quarrels between his sister Khushboo and her
husband Pinki alias Dhaniram Uchadiya (present applicant) for some time.
On the said date at about 04:00 PM, the complainant went to Khushboo's
house. At that time, the younger brother of the coaccused, Yogesh, along
with his wife, had come to drop Khushboo and the accused at home. Yogesh
informed him that there had been a quarrel between the couple, and therefore
he had brought them home. Thereafter, Yogesh and his wife left. At about
06:00 PM, the complainant returned to the house with his friend, but the
accused did not open the door. From the balcony upstairs, the accused stated
that Khushboo was sleeping, and therefore the complainant left. At about
09:00 PM, the complainant's nephew Krishna came to his house and
informed him that his father (the accused) was not opening the door. The
complainant then went to his sister's house along with his nephew. When the
accused did not open the door, it was forcibly opened. Upon going upstairs,
the complainant saw his sister Khushboo lying on the floor of the room.
There was blood spread in the room and on the bed. His sister had sustained
an injury on her head. When he asked the accused about the incident, the
accused stated that Khushboo was not listening to him, so he assaulted her
with a sickle (hasia). Thereafter, the accused sat outside. The complainant
then called the police at emergency number 100. The accused Pinki alias
Dhaniram had murdered his sister Khushboo by assaulting her with a sickle.
On the basis of the said report, a merg intimation No. 0/24 under Section 174
Cr.P.C. and Dehati Nalishi No. 0/23 under Section 302 IPC were registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7478
3 MCRC-9647-2026
A Safina form was issued, and an inquest (panchnama) of the deceased
Khushboo Uchadiya was prepared. Blood-stained clothes found at the scene
were seized. The accused Pinki alias Dhaniram Uchadiya was arrested from
the spot. He was interrogated and his memorandum statement was
recorded. On the basis of the memorandum statement given by the accused
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the weapon used in the commission of
the offence, namely a sickle, was recovered and duly seized under a seizure
memo. As blood stains were found on the clothes worn by the accused, his
clothes were also seized. Thereafter, upon returning to Police Station
Janakganj, Crime No. 788/23 under Section 302 IPC was formally registered.
The dead body of deceased Khushboo Uchadiya was sent for postmortem
examination at J.A.H., Gwalior. The postmortem report was obtained, and
during the postmortem, preserved articles were duly seized. A site map of
the place of occurrence was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded,
and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and is completely innocent of the
allegations levelled against him. He is in custody since 24.12.2023. It is
contended that the prosecution story suffers from serious inconsistencies and
material contradictions which go to the root of the matter and render the case
highly doubtful. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, and
there is no direct eyewitness account establishing that the applicant
committed the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the most material
witness, Krishna (PW/3), who is the son of the applicant and the deceased,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7478
4 MCRC-9647-2026
has not supported the prosecution case and has categorically deposed that his
father was not present at home at the relevant time and it was one Shahrukh
who assaulted his mother with a sickle. The said witness has specifically
stated that he saw Shahrukh inflicting injuries upon the deceased. Learned
counsel further submits that even as per the statement of Neeraj (PW/6), he
has admitted that he did not personally see the applicant assaulting the
deceased. Thus, there is no eyewitness who has seen the applicant
committing the alleged act. The alleged extra-judicial confession attributed
to the applicant is highly doubtful and appears to be an afterthought. Such a
confession, allegedly made in the presence of interested witnesses, without
any independent corroboration, cannot be relied upon. It is also contended
that the recovery of the sickle does not conclusively connect the applicant
with the crime. As per the prosecution's own version, the sickle was seized
from the place where the dead body was lying, and not pursuant to any
exclusive disclosure leading to discovery from a concealed place. Therefore,
the alleged recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act loses its
evidentiary value. The prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain
of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the applicant and ruling
out every hypothesis of innocence. The charge-sheet has already been filed
and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Continued
detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is
impermissible in law. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take a
considerable period of time. The applicant is a permanent resident of District
Gwalior and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7478
5 MCRC-9647-2026
prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses. In view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to
enlarge the applicant on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail
application and prayed for its rejection, looking to the nature and gravity of
offence.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
allegations coupled with the facts that the applicant is in custody since
24.12.2023, 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
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, 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 may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7478
6 MCRC-9647-2026
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
pwn*
