[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalit Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8344
1 MCRC-11138-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11138 of 2026
LALIT KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vibhor Kumar Sahu - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Manish Saxena - GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 28.1.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.No.3224 of 2026.
The applicant has been arrested on 6.1.2026 by Police Station- Cantt,
District Guna in connection with Crime No.331 (4), 305 (A) of BNS, 2023.
As per the prosecution story, on 04.12.2024, the complainant, went to
Police Station Cantt, and submitted that on 01.12.2024 at around 7:00 AM,
he and his wife had locked their house and went to Bhopal to attend a
wedding. On 03.12.2024 at around 11:30 PM, they returned home. Upon
entering through the main gate, they found that the lock of one of the rooms
was broken, the wardrobe was open, and the articles were scattered. Gold
and silver jewelry along with cash kept in the wardrobe were missing. On the
basis of report, FIR under aforesaid sections was registered against unknown
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8344
2 MCRC-11138-2026
persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence. It is
further submitted that the applicant is in continuous judicial custody since
06.01.2026. The prosecution case against the applicant is purely
circumstantial in nature and is mainly based on the alleged memorandum
statements and recovery. There is no direct evidence or eyewitness account
connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted
that co-accused, Dharmendra Rajak, from whom the alleged recovery was
claimed, has already been acquitted on merits by the learned Trial Court vide
judgment dated 08.08.2025 in RCT/260/2025, wherein the entire prosecution
case has been disbelieved. The learned Trial Court has held that the alleged
memorandum, recovery, and seizure proceedings were not proved beyond
reasonable doubt and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete. It is
further submitted that the complainant in his court statement, has clearly
stated that he does not know the applicant and would not be able to identify
him even if he appears before him. The complainant has further stated that he
did not immediately go to lodge the report on the day he came to know about
the incident and that he did not call Dial-100. He has also admitted that he
had lodged the report against unknown persons and had not given any written
application for registration of the report. This statement clearly create serious
doubt regarding the prosecution story and weaken the case against the
present applicant. The applicant is permanent resident of District Guna and
there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8344
3 MCRC-11138-2026
evidence. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be
imposed. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made
out.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and
prayed for its rejection.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
allegations and coupled with the fact that 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.
This order will remain operative 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 themselves in extending inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8344
4 MCRC-11138-2026
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
(aspr)
