[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Upadhaya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8826
1 MCRC-11915-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11915 of 2026
MANISH UPADHAYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Trishant Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - GA for the respondent/State.
Shri Deependra Singh Bhadoriya - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
This is the second application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. His first bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 12.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.1158/2026.
The applicant has been arrested on 25.09.2025 by Police Station
Dehat, District Bhind in connection with Crime No.480/2025, registered in
relation to the offence punishable under Sections 109, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS,
2023.
As per prosecution story, the complainant, Amar Singh, lodged a
report at Police Station Dehat to the effect that on 14.08.2025 at around
10:00 a.m., he was returning from his field to his house in Village Jamna
with fodder on his Honda Shine motorcycle. On the way, he saw his rivals,
Manish Upadhyay (present applicant) and Dheeraj Upadhyay, both residents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8826
2 MCRC-11915-2026
of Jamna, with whom he had an ongoing land dispute. Both accused were
going from Jamna towards the market on a motorcycle, with Dheeraj riding
the motorcycle and Manish seated behind. As soon as the complainant
reached near the house of Avadhesh Sharma, both accused turned their
motorcycle around and came back towards the village. It was alleged that
Manish Upadhyay, with intention to kill, fired at the complainant from
behind with a country-made firearm, causing pellet injuries on his back,
resulting in minor marks and light bleeding. When the complainant started
shouting, Avadhesh Sharma, who lived nearby, and Harnam Singh
Bhadauriya, who was coming from behind, reached the spot and witnessed
the incident. Thereafter, both accused, Manish and Dheeraj, fled from the
spot on their motorcycle while threatening to kill him. On the basis of the
complainant's report, alleged crime was registered against the accused. After
completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent
Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity with the
informant and has no connection with the alleged offence. It is submitted that
the alleged vessels and handmade liquor were not seized from the possession
of the applicant and, therefore, the prosecution story appears to be false and
doubtful. The investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet
has been filed. Learned counsel further submits that in the earlier bail
application, liberty was granted by this Court to file a fresh application after
the examination of the complainant/injured, and accordingly the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8826
3 MCRC-11915-2026
has now been examined before the Trial Court on 26.02.2026. The allegation
of firing a gunshot at the complainant is not corroborated by the medical
evidence. As per the MLC report, the complainant sustained injuries caused
by a hard and blunt object, which completely contradicts the allegation of
pellet injuries and raises serious doubts regarding the prosecution case. It is
further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since
25.09.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time.
The applicant is a permanent resident of District Bhind and there is no
likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is
further submitted that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 11.12.2025 in M.Cr.C. No.57156/2025. In these
circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for
the complainant 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8826
4 MCRC-11915-2026
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, 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 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
neetu
