[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1526
1 CRA-12592-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12592 of 2025
KAMAL CHOUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Senior counsel with Shri Rajesh Yadav
appeared for appellant.
Shri Rahul Solanki appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A(2) of SC/ST (POA), Act,
1989 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by
Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, District Indore whereby the application for
bail of the appellant, who is in custody since 16.12.2025 in connection with
Crime No.296/2008, registered at Police Station Manpur, District Indore
under Section 302, 341, 120-B, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA), Act, 1989 and under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act,
1959, has been rejected.
2. Facts in brief are that one Ramesh Ninama resident of Village
Khurdi, Police Station Manpur, Indore was eye-witness of the murder of
Pyar Singh Ninama and Dinesh Nanama in the intervening night of 17-
18/08/2003. Co-accused Lokesh Sharma was the accused in that incident and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1526
2 CRA-12592-2025
Lokesh Sharma was in apprehension that he may be convicted on the
testimony of Ramesh Ninama. To avid the conviction in the case relating to
the Murder of Pyar Singh Ninama and Dinesh Ninama, a conspiracy was
hatched by Lokesh Sharma with Rajendra Chouhan @ Samandar @
Dashrath and present appellant Kamal Chouhan to eliminate witness Ramesh
Ninama. To execute that conspiracy Lokesh Sharma surrendered in that case
and thereafter, co-accused Rajendra and the present appellant committed the
murder of Ramesh Ninama at about 10:30 AM on 14.07.2008 by Gunshot
fire at Nandlai Ghati, Old AB Road, Indore. At that time, Manoj @ Kailash
Chouhan Resident of Village Khurdi Police Station Manpur was with the
Ramesh Ninama who seen the assailants. Accordingly, Crime No.296/2008
was registered. During the Investigation, Rajendra and co-accused Lokesh
were apprehended and identification parade was conducted. Rajendra was
identified as a person who had opened the gun shot fire on the deceased
Ramesh Ninama.
3. The appellant/accused could not be apprehended, he could be
apprehended on 16.12.2025 and the charge sheet was filed on 19.12.2025.
4. The appellant/accused filed an application before the learned trial
Court and the learned trial Court has rejected the application by giving
following findings reproduced as under:-
आवेदक/ आरोपी कमल चौहान मामले म ारं भ से ह फरार
रहा है । उसक ओर से तुत अि म जमानत आवेदन
दनांक 13.03.2020 को िनर त हुआ है । मामले म
सहआरोपीगण के व 9 सा ीगण का कथन िलया गया है ।
आवेदक/ आरोपी के कृ य के प रणाम व प मामले का
वचारण बािधत रहा है । सहआरोपीगण क जमानत माननीय
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1526
3 CRA-12592-2025
उ च यायालय ारा 06 माह अिभर ा के उपरांत वीकार
क गई है । आवेदक/ आरोपी को दनांक 16.12.2025 को
िगर तार कया गया है । इस आवेदक/ आरोपी क अिभर ा
क अविध तथा मामले क गंभीरता को दे खते हुए आवेदक/
आरोपी को समानता के आधार पर जमानत का लाभ दान
कया जाना उिचत तीत नह ं होने से आवेदक/ आरोपी कमल
चौहान क ओर से तुत जमानत आवेदन िनर त कया
जाता है ।
5. Challenging the impugned order, the present criminal appeal has
been preferred on the ground that there is no eye-witness of the incident, the
charge sheet has been filed with a delay of 11 years, whole prosecution case
is suspicious. The co-accused has been extended the benefit of bail on
03.03.2020 in CRA No.1921/2020. The appellant/accused is entitled for bail
on the ground of parity with the co-accused persons. The prosecution
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the appellant is
not concerned with the conspiracy hatched by the co-accused persons.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant further submits that in FIR
No.09 dated 29.07.2010 under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307,
324, 326, 124-a, 438 and 440 of IPC and under Sections 150, 151, 152 of the
Railways Act and under Section 3, 4, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908, under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public
Proper Act, 1984 and Section 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the Unalwful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 by the National Investigation Agency,
New Delhi the appellant/accused has been acquitted by the Special Judge,
Under the NIA Act, for the State of Haryana, At Panchkula vide judgment
dated 20.03.2019 and further Crime No.202/2005 registered at Police Station
Depalpur, Indore has been resulted in acquittal of the accused persons on the
basis of composition/compounding with the victim.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1526
4 CRA-12592-2025
7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application on the
ground that the appellant/accused has been apprehended after a period of 17
years. His anticipatory bail was dismissed in the year 2020 and he has not
respected the due process of law, there is every possibility that he will again
abscond and if he is granted the benefit of bail, he may adversely affect the
evidence against him.
8. Perused the record.
9. The statements of Manoj Chouhan reveals that he is the eye-witness
of the incident, his statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., 1973
mention the features of the assailants and has identified one of the co-
accused. This present appellant/accused kept himself out of the investigation
process for a long period. The supplementary statements of witness Manoj
Chouhan dated 02.09.2019 is to the effect that he will identify the person
who was driving the motorcycle at the time of incident. The Investigating
Officer did not took the pain to conduct the identification parade and
submitted the charge-sheet without completing the essential formalities of
the investigation. Such type of exercise of Lalit Singh Sikarwar, SDOP,
Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District Indore may be either due to lack of
knowledge or for other considerations, but both are not expected from a
senior police officer conducting the investigation of heinous offence.
10. Since, the test identification has only a corroborative value and the
substantial evidence is identification in the dock and whatever the delay is
being raised on behalf of the accused/appellant, he is solely responsible for
that delay and he cannot take the advantage of that delay. If the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1526
5 CRA-12592-2025
appellant/accused is released on bail than there is every possibility that he
may again abscond or may affect the evidence against him. Hence, he is not
entitled to release on bail. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
11. So far as the conduct of Lalit Singh Sikarwar, SDOP, Ambedkar
Nagar, Mhow District Indore is concerned, Office is directed to sent a copy
of this order to Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal
for necessary information with further direction to ensure correctional
measures in investigation of such heinous case.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
