[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18994
1 CRA-1263-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1263 of 2026
MUKESH MEENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Surendra Singh - Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Pathak - Advocate for the
appellant.
Shri Amit Singh Baghel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Kamal Singh Rajput - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The appellant has filed this second criminal appeal under Section 14-A
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 being aggrieved by order dated 19.12.2025 passed in SCATR
No.90/2024 by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Harda, MP whereby his bail
application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, has been rejected.
2 . The appellant has been arrested on 26.08.2024 relating to
FIR/Crime No.279/2024 registered at police station -Civil Line, District
Harda (M.P.); for offence punishable under Sections 103, 3(5) of BNS, 2023,
and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3 . It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the present appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18994
2 CRA-1263-2026
that this is the second bail application. Earlier one was dismissed as
withdrawn vie order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.14332/2024. As many as eight witnesses have been examined before the
learned Trial Court. The informant - Tarun has been examined as PW-7. As
per the story of prosecution, present appellant was not present on the spot
when co-accused Ramvilas was seen having conversation with the
deceased. It is also submitted that the only evidence against the present
appellant is the memorandum and the seizure memo. Memorandum is not
admissible in the evidence. As far as seizure is concerned, one shirt from the
spot at the house of the deceased has been seized but it is not established by
the prosecution that the shirt belongs to the present appellant. Moreover, the
paint and the mobile phone of the deceased are said to have been seized from
the house of Ramvilas but there is no evidence on record that the present
appellant and Ramvilas were residing in the same house so also that the paint
seized from the house of Ramvilas belongs to present appellant. The
appellant is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions which
may be imposed by this Court. Conclusion of trial will take time. On these
grounds, learned senior counsel prays for grant of bail to the appellant.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as counsel
appearing for the objector have opposed the bail application/appeal and
prayed for its rejection.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6 . Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18994
3 CRA-1263-2026
inclined to release the present appellant on bail. Thus, without commenting
on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed and it is directed
that appellant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court/Committal Court.
7 . This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the appellant :-
"i) The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
ii) The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
may be;
iii) The appellant will not indulge himself in extending 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;
iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused;
v) The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial;
vi) The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
vii) If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, then this order shall
loose its effect automatically."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18994
4 CRA-1263-2026
8 . Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance by the office of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
