[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Moman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9828
1 MCRC-13018-2026
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. 13018 of 2026
MOMAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Singh Jadoun - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Harish Sharma Dy Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
Shri Lokendra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
[COMP].
ORDER
This is first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by
the applicant for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 29.12.2025 by Police Station-
Chachoda, District Guna in connection with Crime No.409/2025,
registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 109,
118(1), 296(B), 351(3), 3 (5), 118 (2) of BNS and section 25/27 of
Arms Act.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 03.11.2025, the
complainant lodged a report at Police Station Chachoda, District Guna.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9828
2 MCRC-13018-2026
On the said date at about 09:00 PM, the complainant along with his
brother Rakesh Tanwar was proceeding towards their agricultural field
to start the motor. On the way, they were intercepted by accused persons
namely Moman, Panchilal, Dinesh, and Ramesh, all sons of Kashiram
Tanwar. Moman was armed with a firearm, while the other accused
persons were carrying axes (farsi). Due to previous enmity, all the
accused persons started abusing the complainant and his brother in filthy
and obscene language. When the complainant and Rakesh objected to
such abuses, Moman fired at the complainant with the intention to kill,
which hit his right arm, causing injury and bleeding. Thereafter, when
Rakesh Tanwar intervened to rescue the complainant, Moman again
fired at him, causing injuries on his nose and right hand, resulting in
bleeding. During the incident, the complainant's younger brother Jagdish
reached the spot to intervene, whereupon Dinesh assaulted him with an
axe, causing a bleeding injury on his head. Subsequently, when their
elder brother Rodji (Roadji) came to their rescue, Ramesh attacked him
with an axe, causing a bleeding injury on the back of his left shoulder.
During the scuffle, the complainant also sustained an injury on the stick-
side of his left arm. Additionally, Panchilal assaulted Rakesh's nephew
with an axe, causing a bleeding injury on his right wrist. On hearing the
commotion, the complainant's wife Sajanbai, niece Sokhinabai, and
sister-in-law Mangibai also arrived at the spot. On the basis of the said
report, Police Station Chachoda registered the case against the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9828
3 MCRC-13018-2026
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence.
It is submitted that as per the prosecution story itself, no specific injury
has been attributed to the present applicant. There is no clear, distinct, or
overt act assigned to him. The allegations are vague, general, and
omnibus in nature, which do not satisfy the ingredients of the alleged
offences. Hence, the provisions invoked, including Section 109 of BNS,
are not prima facie made out against the applicant. The applicant was
not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. His
implication is merely on the basis of suspicion and general allegations
without any cogent or reliable evidence. It is further submitted that the
applicant has been falsely implicated due to pre-existing village enmity.
The FIR contains general allegations against all accused persons, and the
solitary allegation attributed to the applicant appears exaggerated and is
not corroborated by medical evidence. It is further submitted
that nothing remains to be seized or recovered from the possession of
the applicant. The investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet has
already been filed before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, no custodial
interrogation of the applicant is required. Trial will take time for its
conclusion. The applicant is permanent resident of District Guna and
there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the
prosecution evidence. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions
as may be imposed. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9828
4 MCRC-13018-2026
bail is sought.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature
of allegations and particularly the ground of parity with co-accused,
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 his appearance
on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order will remain operative 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 themselves in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9828
5 MCRC-13018-2026
as to dissuade him 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
(aspr)
