[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprakash Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9870
1 MCRC-10417-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10417 of 2026
RAMPRAKASH RATHORE
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Harish Sharma - Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10896 of 2026
SOORAJ
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Harish Sharma - Deputy Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.
Shri M.L. Tomar - Advocate for complainant.
ORDER
These are the first applications preferred by the applicants under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of bail.
The applicants have been arrested on 06.02.2026 in connection with
Crime No. 593/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9870
2 MCRC-10417-2026
Morena, for offences punishable under Sections 333, 125, 296, 351(2),
109(1), 190, 191(2), 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections
25/27 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Rakesh Rathore, lodged
an oral report on 22.10.2025 alleging that, due to prior enmity, Sooraj
Rathore, armed with a country-made pistol, along with Prince Rathore,
Akash Rathore, and Jayveer Rathore, who were carrying sticks and rods,
forcibly entered his house and started abusing him. It is further alleged that,
in the meantime, Sachin Baghel, Rahul Rathore (son of Sarman Rathore),
Rahul (son of Ramprakash Rathore), and Ramprakash (son of Asharam
Rathore) also entered the premises and engaged in pushing and scuffling
with the complainant, as a result of which he fell and sustained minor
injuries. It is further alleged that Sooraj Rathore discharged a shot in the air
from the pistol, thereby putting the complainant's life in danger. Shortly
thereafter, two to three unidentified persons also arrived and began abusing
him. Subsequently, Ramprakash Rathore and Shyamsundar Rathore
intervened and pacified the matter, following which all the accused persons
left the spot after extending threats to kill the complainant. On the basis of
the said oral report, present First Information Report came to be registered.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted
that the specific allegation against the applicant Ramprakash is that he, along
with other co-accused persons, entered the premises and engaged in pushing
and scuffling with the complainant, due to which the complainant fell and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9870
3 MCRC-10417-2026
sustained minor injuries. It is further submitted that the statement of the
injured witness, Rahul Singhal, who sustained a firearm injury on the right
side of his mouth, clearly reveals that Sooraj Rathore and Sandeep Rathore
were carrying a katta, and it was Sandeep Rathore who fired the shot which
struck his lower jaw. Though it is alleged that applicant Sooraj had also fired,
but the shot did not injured anyone. Thus, the firearm injury is specifically
attributed to co-accused Sandeep Rathore and not to the present applicants. It
is further submitted that the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to
take a considerable period of time to conclude. The applicants are permanent
residents of District Morena and there is no likelihood of their absconding or
tampering with the prosecution evidence. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to enlarge the applicants on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant
vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of bail, submitting that the present
case involves serious and grave offences wherein the applicants, along with
other co-accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly and forcibly
trespassed into the house of the complainant with premeditated intent, armed
with deadly weapons including a firearm. Considering the nature of
allegations, the use of weapons, prior enmity, and the threat extended to the
complainant, there exists a strong possibility of the applicants influencing
witnesses and tampering with evidence if released on bail. Therefore, in view
of the seriousness of the offence and the material available on record, it is
prayed that the application for bail be rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9870
4 MCRC-10417-2026
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and 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 applicants.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the present application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released
on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), along with one solvent surety in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Committal
Court for their appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicants:-
1. The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by them;
2. The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
may be;
3. The applicants will not indulge themselves 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 applicants shall not commit any other offence during pendency
of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9870
5 MCRC-10417-2026
without further reference to the Bench;
5. The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial; and
6. The applicants 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
ojha
