[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamarlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8892
1 MCRC-9159-2026
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. 9159 of 2026
KAMARLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Singh Jadoun - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This is second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. His earlier bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 30.07.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14401/2025 by
the Coordinate Bench.
The applicant has been arrested on 18.07.2023 in connection with
crime No.321/2023 registered at Police Station Chachoda District Guna for
offence punishable under Sections 307, 302, 34 of IPC added Section 294 of
IPC.
As per the prosecution case, on 17.07.2023, the informant Ramesh
Bhil lodged a Dehati Nalishi at Police Station Chanchoda, stating that he
works as a labourer and has five brothers. It was alleged that some time prior
to the incident, he had constructed a house near the boundary ridge (med) on
the side of Goya, adjoining the agricultural land of Kamarlal (the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8892
2 MCRC-9159-2026
applicant). The applicant had earlier abused the informant and his family
members with filthy language while claiming that the said boundary ridge
formed part of his land, which led to a dispute between the parties. It was
further alleged that on 16.07.2023 at about 08:00 PM, the informant along
with his brother Parvat Bhil went to the house of the applicant Kamarlal and
his son Sonu Bhil in order to explain the matter and settle the dispute. At
about 08:30 PM, Kamarlal and his son Sonu allegedly came out of their
house carrying sharp-edged iron Pharsa (axe-like weapons) and started
hurling obscene abuses. It is alleged that Kamarlal, with the intention to kill,
struck Parvat Bhil on the head with the Pharsha. Thereafter, Sonu Bhil, who
was also armed with a Pharsa, inflicted another blow on Parvat. As a result
of the assault, Parvat Bhil sustained grievous head injuries and started
bleeding profusely. Thereafter, the informant along with his brother Gopal
Bhil immediately took the injured Parvat in the vehicle of Sarpanch Niranjan
to Arshi Hospital for treatment. However, during the course of treatment,
Parvat Bhil succumbed to the injuries. The incident was stated to have been
witnessed by Gopal Bhil and other villagers. On the basis of the said Dehati
Nalishi, the present FIR was registered against the accused persons.
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 a Pharsa alleged to have been seized from the applicant has been
examined, and no human blood has been detected on the said weapon.
Learned counsel further submits that the statement of the complainant's
brother indicates that after the incident they called the Sarpanch, who took
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8892
3 MCRC-9159-2026
the deceased Parvat to the hospital. However, in his statement, Niranjan
Singh Gurjar has stated that the deceased Parvat had fallen on a stone and
therefore he himself took him to the hospital. These contradictory versions
create doubt regarding the prosecution story. It is also submitted that the trial
is likely to take a considerable period of time to conclude. The applicant is a
permanent resident of District Guna and there is no likelihood of his
absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel prays that the
applicant be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, leanred counsel for hte State vehemently opposed the
present bail application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
From the record it appears that the applicant has been specifically
named in the FIR and a clear allegation has been made that he inflicted a
blow with a Pharsa on the head of the deceased Parvat Bhil. The statement of
Ramesh Bheel (PW-1) supports the prosecution version regarding the role
attributed to the applicant.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant regarding
absence of human blood on the seized weapon as well as the alleged
contradictions in the statements of the witnesses are matters which pertain to
appreciation of evidence and can be considered only during the course of
trial. At this stage, the material available on record does not indicate any
circumstance which would justify grant of bail to the applicant. Considering
the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offence is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8892
4 MCRC-9159-2026
alleged to have been committed, and the specific role attributed to the
applicant in causing fatal injuries to the deceased, this Court is not inclined
to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the present second bail application filed by the applicant
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is hereby
dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
