[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopiram Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8206
1 CRA-182-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 182 of 2026
GOPIRAM KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Daya Ram Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
The appellant has filed this first criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 being aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2025 passed by Special Judge,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Gwalior, whereby bail application under Section 483 of BNSS of appellant
has been dismissed.
2. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the victim has been
informed about filing of this appeal in compliance with mandate of Section
15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The applicant is in custody since 21.08.2023 in connection with
Crime No.172/2023 at Police Station- Pichhor, District Gwalior for the
offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 336, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8206
2 CRA-182-2026
added Sections 302, 307 of IPC & Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh), 3(2)(v)A of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. It is the submission of counsel for the appellant that although, this is
the 5th appeal filed by the appellant and his last two appeals were dismissed
on merits vide order dated 29.04.2025 and dated 13.10.2025 but thereafter,
substantial time has lapsed, hence, the present appeal may be considered on
this different consideration.
5. As per prosecution story when the complainant Dwarika along with
his brother Sitaram and deceased Parmanand was working at his field, at that
time, present appellant along with other co-accused persons came there and
intercepted them in cultivating the field and abused them in filthy
language and uttered caste related words. When the complainant objected,
then present appellant inflicted injuries over the head of complainant-
Dwarika by means of an axe and other co-accused persons have also caused
injury by axe to Sitaram and Dayaram; and all the accused beat the
Parmanand by kicks and fist due to which, during treatment, Parmanand
succumbed to the injuries.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the crime. He is in custody since
21.08.2023. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
allegations against co-accused persons were of giving axe blow on the head
of two injured and then hitting deceased-Parmanand by kicks and fists and
blows. The allegation against the present appellant is also similar in nature
because he is alleged of giving axe blow on the head of injured/complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8206
3 CRA-182-2026
-Dwarika. Thus, there is no allegation against the present appellant also of
hitting the deceased causing fatal injury. Therefore, there is no difference
between the case of appellant and other co-accused persons who have
already granted benefit of bail and case of the appellant is absolutely similar,
hence, he seeks parity. Trial is likely to take long time to conclude. The
appellant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be
imposed by the Court. On these grounds, he prays that the impugned order
be set aside and appellant may be extended the benefit of bail.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposed the appeal but
could not differentiate the role of appellant from co-accused who have
already been enlarged by this Court and unable to point out any specific role
attributed to the present appellant different from the role of co-accused.
8. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that
trial will take some time to conclude, without commenting upon the merits of
the case, this appeal stands allowed and it is directed that the appellant be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the appellant:-
1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
2.The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8206
4 CRA-182-2026
may be;
3.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;
4.The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused;
5.The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial; and
6.The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE
Ashish*
