[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Rav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8825
1 MCRC-9734-2026
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. 9734 of 2026
AMIT RAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Dwivedi - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Keshav Pathak - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
The applicant has filed this second application under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail after withdrawal of earlier one vide order
dated 04.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.40288 of 2025 with liberty to
file afresh after examination of the Court's statements of the
complainant/injured. He has been arrested on 13.07.2025 by Police
Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime
No.249 of 2025 registered in relation to the offence punishable under
Sections 109, 126(2) of BNS, 2023.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 12.07.2025 at about 08:30
AM, the complainant Suman Chavhan received a phone call from her
son-in-law Vishal, informing her that near Aashirwad Vatika, in front of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8825
2 MCRC-9734-2026
Helipad Colony, Gwalior, her daughter Sapna had been assaulted by her
husband Amit Rao (present applicant), and that the police had taken her
to J.A. Hospital. Upon receiving this information, when the complainant
reached the Trauma Center of J.A. Hospital, she found that a sword had
pierced near Sapna's left knee, and there were cut injuries on her right
leg, thigh, and arms, from which blood was oozing. The injured Sapna
told her that while she was going to work that day, Amit (present
applicant) stopped her on the way and assaulted her with a sword with
the intention to kill her, as a result of which she sustained the injuries
and thereafter became unconscious.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
contended that the applicant has been in judicial custody since
13.07.2025, and despite the lapse of eight months, the trial has not
progressed to a meaningful stage. It is further submitted that the earlier
bail application was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application
after the examination of the complainant/injured before the trial Court.
However, despite repeated opportunities, the complainant/injured has
failed to appear for recording of her evidence. The record reveals that
the trial Court granted opportunities on 25.11.2025, thereafter on
17.12.2025, 30.01.2026, when she was summoned through an arrest
warrant, and lastly on 22.02.2026, after considering an application
moved on her behalf stating that she was unable to move or walk and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8825
3 MCRC-9734-2026
seeking time for recording of her evidence. Despite these opportunities,
her statement has not been recorded. It is therefore submitted that the
delay in the progress of the trial cannot be attributed to the applicant, and
his continued incarceration would cause serious prejudice to his
fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the counsel for
the complainant opposed the application and submitted that in view of
the gravity of allegations, the applicant does not deserve bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
It is well settled that the right to speedy trial is part and parcel of
the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The applicant has undergone pre-trial detention of
more than seven months. The delay in examining the said witnesses
cannot be attributed to the applicant. Continued incarceration in such
circumstances would amount to deprivation of liberty on uncertain
grounds. In the above facts and circumstances, without commenting
upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the
applicant deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, the application is
allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8825
4 MCRC-9734-2026
satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance on the dates
fixed by it.
On being released on bail, the applicant shall abide by the
conditions enumerated in Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance
and information.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
