[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8562
1 MCRC-11121-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11121 of 2026
VIRENDRA GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Brijendra Singh Gour - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This is second application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. His first bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to revive afresh after suffering some further
reasonable period of custody vide order dated 24.02.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.8448 of 2026 by this Court.
The applicant has been arrested on 06.02.2026 in connection with
Crime No.215/2025 registered at Police Station- Madhusudangarh, District
Guna in relation to the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Excise
Act.
The allegation against the present applicant is that he was found under
possession of 243 litres of illicit liquor.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has been in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8562
2 MCRC-11121-2026
custody since 06.02.2026. It is contended that the alleged offence is triable
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, therefore, further custodial
interrogation of the applicant is no more required. The applicant was earlier
released released after issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS,
2023. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. There is
no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may
be pleased to enlarge the applicant on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed
the bail application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and nature
of allegations, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8562
3 MCRC-11121-2026
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 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 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
ojha
