[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nikhil Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8577
1 MCRC-11055-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11055 of 2026
NIKHIL CHAUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prem Singh Bhadouria - Advcoate with Shri Trishant Mishra -
Advocate for applicant.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This is first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail.
2. The applicant has been arrested on 25.02.2026 in connection with crime
No.106/2026 registered at Police Station Maharajpura District Gwalior for offence
punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(3), 3(5) of B.N.S. and 25/27 of Arms act
3. As per prosecution case, on 23.02.2026 at about 05:00 PM, the
complainant Rohit Kumar was working as a Supervisor at Baretha toll plaza and
was temporarily performing the duties of a toll collector at Booth No. 7, as no toll
collector was present there. At that time, two unidentified persons, with cloths
(gamchas) wrapped around their faces and wearing helmets, passed by on a
motorcycle from Bhind towards Gwalior and stopped a short distance ahead.
Thereafter, the person seated on the rear of the motorcycle got down and
approached the complainant's booth on foot, carrying what appeared to be a
pistol-like weapon. He handed over a handwritten note and instructed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8577
2 MCRC-11055-2026
complainant to inform the manager that if the highway was not constructed, he
would not allow the toll to operate. He further threatened to kill the complainant
and, with the intention to cause death, fired several rounds continuously at him. In
an attempt to protect himself, the complainant stepped back and fell from his chair
to the ground. The bullets struck the computer inside the booth, after which the
assailant fled from the spot on the motorcycle. On the basis of this incident, a
report was lodged at the police station, and Crime No. 106/2026 was registered
under Sections 109(1), 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
with the addition of Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the
allegation against the applicant is that, as per the CCTV footage, he was allegedly
present along with the co-accused and was standing near the motorcycle. The
prosecution case is that the co-accused fired gunshots using a pistol belonging to
his father. It is contended that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused
merely because the motorcycle allegedly used in the commission of the offence is
stated to be in the name of the present applicant. Learned counsel further submits
that the trial of the case is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The
applicant is a law-abiding citizen and there is no likelihood of his absconding or
fleeing from justice. The applicant undertakes to abide by any condition that may
be imposed by this Hon'ble Court and assures that he shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence nor attempt to influence any witness. In view of the facts and
circumstances stated hereinabove, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to enlarge the applicant on bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8577
3 MCRC-11055-2026
application, submitting that five empty cartridges were recovered from the spot of
the incident. It is further submitted that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) has
not yet been conducted. Additionally, the report of the handwriting expert with
regard to the note allegedly thrown by the accused persons is still awaited.
Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the stage of investigation, the
learned counsel for the State has prayed that the present bail application be
rejected.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by both the parties, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the
applicant 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.
8. Accordingly, without commenting on merits of the case, this bail
application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court for his appearance before it on the dates given by the concerned Court.
9. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8577
4 MCRC-11055-2026
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.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
11. Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
