[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tekchand Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19735
1 MCRC-59062-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 59062 of 2025
TEKCHAND PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vishal Vincent Rajendra Daniel - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Anoop Sonkar - Dy. GA for State.
Shri Gurdeep Singh Wadhwa - Advocate for objector.
ORDER
This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section
483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.201/2024
registered at Police Station - Birsa, District Balaghat (M.P.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) & 61(2) of B.N.S. Applicant is
in detention since 16.10.2024. The first application of applicant was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.07.2025.
2. As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is
that he alongwith co-accused persons committed murder of deceased.
Therefore, the offence has been registered against the applicant and co-
accused persons under aforesaid offences.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is in jail
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19735
2 MCRC-59062-2025
since 16.10.2024. There was enmity between the applicant and deceased. It is
further submitted that on the date of incident when dead body of deceased
was recovered, at that time, there was law and order situation in that village
because approximate 150 villagers have surrounded the house of Raghunath
(father of co-accused Dinesh) and set fire on the house, due to which
Raghunath burnt and died and his wife was also sustained injuries. This
incident was registered at Police Station Rengakhar, District Kabirdham
(C.G.) as Crime No.65/2024. It is further submitted that in this case, there is
no evidence available against the applicant. In the first post-mortem report, it
was found that the deceased died due to hanging. It is further submitted that
applicant has been made accused on the basis of memorandum of co-accused
and on the basis of call records available in the mobile phone which was
seized from the dead body of deceased after one month. It is further
submitted that regarding CDR, certificate under Section 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act is not filed originally, but it was filed through e-mail, which
cannot be read. The conclusion of trial will take considerable time.
Therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and objector have
opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and have submitted that there was
enmity between the other co-accused persons and deceased and present
applicant was well acquainted with the deceased. Therefore, other co-
accused persons asked the present applicant to call the deceased, for which
Rs.50,000/- was given to the applicant by other co-accused person. Hence,
present applicant and other co-accused persons made a plan and in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19735
3 MCRC-59062-2025
furtherance of that plan, present applicant called from his mobile
No.9685898407 to the deceased on his mobile No.9165262650 under the
pretext of eating chicken, on the place on incident, where they committed
murder of deceased. Motorcycle and sleepers of deceased was found 150 ft.
away from the place of incident which indicates that the deceased was taken
from that place, murdered and hanged on a tree to show that this is a case of
hanging. It is further submitted that the applicant and the other co-accused
persons were in close contact with each other through mobile phones. The
present applicant, along with the other co-accused persons, murdered the
deceased. The present applicant was also in contact with the other co-
accused persons and was providing them with the location of the
deceased. At this stage, the fact regarding CDR certificate filed under
Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act cannot be decided. Hence, the applicant
does not deserve grant of bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Looking to aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as seriousness
of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.
7. Accordingly, present MCRC stands dismissed.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
Sateesh
