[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hardol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9604
1 MCRC-11891-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11891 of 2026
HARDOL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Shrivastava - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This is the first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 08.12.2025 in
connection with Crime No.273/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District
Ashoknagar (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 307, 331(4), 309(6),
310(2) of BNS, 2023.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Mahendra Yadav, lodged a
report at Police Station Shadhoura stating that he resides at Atari Khejra along with
his wife, Guddi Bai. They have no children. On the night of 03.11.2025, after
having dinner, both of them went to sleep. At around 01:30 to 02:00 a.m., he
heard noises of 3-4 persons, due to which he woke up. Upon waking, he saw that
3-4 persons, with their faces covered, had entered his house. Meanwhile, his wife
also woke up. When she raised an alarm, the said persons threw quilts over both of
them and assaulted them, pushing and beating them, causing injuries. Thereafter,
the assailants opened the main door and fled from the spot. Subsequently, he and
his wife inspected the house and found that all the articles were scattered. From a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9604
2 MCRC-11891-2026
large box kept in one of the rooms, which was not locked, cash amounting to
approximately Rs.2,00,000/- kept in a cloth bag, three gold necklaces (including
one pair), four rings, one nose ornament (nath/bainda), a nose pin, gold coins, and
silver ornaments (all old/used), along with one large torch, an induction stove, and
5 kilograms of ghee kept in a steel container, were found missing. The same had
been stolen by the unknown offenders with covered faces. Thereafter, upon going
to the roof, he noticed a four-wheeler vehicle moving towards Kundora side on the
road. On the basis of the report, Crime No. 273/2025 was registered at Police
Station Shadhoura under Sections 307 and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, and investigation was initiated. The injured persons were medically
examined and X-rays were conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded, and
the spot was inspected and a site map was prepared. During investigation, as the
case was found to be one of dacoity, Sections 309(6) and 310(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were added. During the course of investigation, on the basis
of technical evidence and information received from an informant, accused
persons Hardaul Kanjar and Mithun Kanjar were arrested. The accused were
interrogated under Section 23(2) of the Evidence Act, and their separate
memorandum statements were recorded. Pursuant to the memorandum of accused
Mithun, one yellow metal ring resembling gold, having a floral design and found
in a dented condition, along with two silver anklets having small bells attached and
studded with shiny stone-like pieces on the upper side, were recovered and seized.
Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the
entire prosecution story rests upon vague and general allegations, as the
complainant has categorically stated that the assailants had their faces covered, and
therefore, no identification of the present applicant has been made at the time of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9604
3 MCRC-11891-2026
the incident. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, a Test
Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted; however, the complainant and
witnesses have failed to identify the present applicant, which demolishes the very
foundation of the prosecution case. The non-identification of the applicant in the
TIP clearly indicates that the applicant has been falsely implicated and has no
connection with the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the
alleged recovery from the present applicant is doubtful and does not inspire
confidence. It is contended that the articles allegedly recovered from the
possession of the applicant were not identified by the complainant during the
identification proceedings, and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon such
recovery. The prosecution has failed to establish any direct nexus between the
seized articles and the alleged incident. The recovered articles are of common
nature and easily available in the market, and there is no specific identification
mark to conclusively connect them with the complainant. It is also argued that the
seizure witnesses are interested witnesses and no independent witness from the
locality has been associated with the alleged recovery, thereby rendering the entire
recovery proceedings doubtful and unreliable. The memorandum statement
recorded under Section 23(2) of the Evidence Act has limited evidentiary value,
and in the absence of credible and reliable recovery, the same cannot be used to
implicate the applicant. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been
implicated solely on the basis of a disclosure statement and information allegedly
received from a secret informant, which by itself does not constitute substantive
evidence. There is no corroborative evidence available on record to substantiate
the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence, and no incriminating
material has been recovered which directly connects him with the crime. It is also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9604
4 MCRC-11891-2026
submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has
already been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is
required. The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude, and continued
detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment. The applicant is a
permanent resident of District Guna and there is no likelihood of her absconding or
tampering with the prosecution case. On these grounds, prayer is made to enlarge
the applicant on bail.
Per contra , learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection, submitting that the applicant is a habitual
offender and has criminal antecedents of four cases registered against him, which
disentitles him from the grant of bail.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
already been acquitted in all the aforesaid cases.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the 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 her 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9604
5 MCRC-11891-2026
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
pwn*
