[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikramjeet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8083
1 MCRC-10200-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10200 of 2026
VIKRAMJEET SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Asha Ram Shivhare - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Manish Saxena - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Divakar Vyas - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
The applicant has preferred the present third application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking
enlargement on bail, after withdrawal of his earlier application vide
order dated 10.11.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 50719/2025, with liberty
to file afresh after examination of the Court statements of the
complainant.
The applicant has been in judicial custody since 25.07.2025,
having been arrested by Police Station Bhitarwar, District Gwalior, in
connection with Crime No. 197/2025, registered for offences punishable
under Sections 109(1), 296(B), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) read with Sections 25, 30 of the Arms Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8083
2 MCRC-10200-2026
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant
Gurupprakash Singh Sikh came to Police Station Bhitarwar and lodged a
report to the effect that he and his uncle Sukhdev Singh had sold their
entire land and out of that land, 1 bigha situated beside the house of
Vikram Singh, adjoining the main road, was being forcibly claimed by
Vikram Singh. In the midst of this dispute, on 25.07.2025 at about 03:58
PM, the complainant and his uncle's son Talvinder Singh, son of
Sukhdev Singh, went to plough their field with their tractor. At that
time, Guruveer Singh, son of Vikramjeet Singh, came to the field with
his tractor and told them that he would not allow them to plough the land
and he himself would plough it. He also started abusing them with filthy
and obscene abuses. Meanwhile, Vikram Singh came from behind
carrying a gun, from the side of his house, entered the field and also
started abusing them. He threatened the complainant by saying that he
would kill him. Thereafter, Vikram Singh fired a shot from his .315 bore
gun with intention to kill the complainant, but the complainant moved
aside and narrowly escaped. Vikram Singh then fired a second shot,
which passed over Ramprakash Singh. After that, while continuing to
hurl filthy abuses, he fired another shot at Talvinder Singh with the
intention to kill him, which struck him above the knee of his right leg,
causing bleeding. After the incident, the three accused persons continued
abusing them and thretened to kill. On the basis of the said report, Crime
No. 197/2025 was registered at Police Station Bhitarwar against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8083
3 MCRC-10200-2026
accused persons under Sections 109(1), 296(b), 351(2), and 3(5) of the
B.N.S. (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since
25.07.2025, and his earlier bail applications were withdrawn for the
reasons mentioned hereinabove. The principal ground urged in the
present application is that the applicant is suffering serious prejudice on
account of the inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial, which is not
attributable to him. It is contended that despite repeated issuance of
summons by the trial Court, the complainant has failed to appear before
the Court, thereby hampering the progress of the trial proceedings.
Owing to the non-appearance of the complainant, the matter has
repeatedly been adjourned, resulting in unnecessary delay in the trial.
Learned counsel further submits that the repeated absence of the
complainant appears to be deliberate and mala fide, intended to prolong
the proceedings and keep the applicant incarcerated for an indefinite
period. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369, wherein the Apex
Court has held that undue and unreasonable delay in trial amounts to a
violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial, which forms an
integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8083
4 MCRC-10200-2026
submitted that the prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the applicant,
coupled with the delay in trial not attributable to him, has caused serious
prejudice to his right to life and personal liberty, and therefore he
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the
counsel for the complainant opposed the application and submitted that
considering the gravity of the allegations, the applicant is not entitled to
grant of bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary as well as the record.
It is well settled that the right to speedy trial is an integral facet of
the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In the present case, the applicant has undergone
pre-trial detention of more than seven months. The delay in recording the
statements of the complainant, cannot be attributed to the applicant.
Continued incarceration in such circumstances would amount to
deprivation of liberty on uncertain and indefinite grounds.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court is
of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant
Keshav Yadav be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8083
5 MCRC-10200-2026
surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned,
for securing his appearance on all dates fixed by the said Court.
On being released on bail, the applicant shall abide by the
conditions enumerated in Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance
and information.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
