[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9968
1 MCRC-12888-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 23 rd OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12921 of 2026
SHAILENDRA RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Pavan Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Harish Sharma Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12888 of 2026
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. N.K. Gupta - Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Harish Sharma Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13276 of 2026
MANISH BEDIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Dheeraj Budholiya - Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Harish Sharma Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Since all three these applications are arising out of same crime number
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9968
2 MCRC-12888-2026
registered at same police station, therefore, they have been heard together and are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. These are second & first (M.Cr.C. No. 13276 of 2026) applications filed
by the applicants respectively under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail relating
to Crime No.338/2025 registered at Police Station Karariya, District
Vidisha(M.P.) for the offence under Sections 115(2), 296(A), 3(5), 351(3) of BNS
and added Sections 103(1), 117 (2) of BNS.
3. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 23.11.2025, at
about 11:30 PM. The complainant, Rajkumar Raghuvanshi, accompanied by
Devendra and Durgesh Raghuvanshi, visited a liquor shop at Chitoria Jod. A
verbal altercation ensued when the shop manager, Ramu Rai, refused to sell
liquor, claiming the shop was closed. The situation escalated when Ramu Rai and
his associate, Manish Bediya, allegedly assaulted the complainant with sticks,
causing injuries above his right eye and to his right arm. When Devendra and
Durgesh intervened, two or three unidentified associates of the accused joined the
assault with sticks. Consequently, Devendra sustained a head injury, while
Durgesh suffered multiple bodily injuries. Thereafter, injured sent to the District
Hospital and during treatment of one injured Rajkumar Raghuvanshi has died.
Accordingly, aforesaid crime was registered.
4. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and
have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants have been in
custody since 25.11.2025. As the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet
has been filed, their further incarceration is unnecessary. It is further submitted
that the applicants were implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum
statements of co-accused persons. Notably, the initial FIR was registered only
against Ramu Rai and Manish Bediya, along with two or three unidentified
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9968
3 MCRC-12888-2026
persons. Even if the prosecution's story is accepted as true, it is an admitted fact
that the three applicants allegedly assaulted other injured persons, not the
deceased, using sticks. It is further submitted that the eyewitnesses, namely
Devendra Raghuwanshi (PW-4) and Durgesh (PW-5), as well as all other material
witnesses, have already been examined before the learned trial court. However,
they did not support the prosecution's case and have turned hostile.It is further
submitted that although the applicant, Manish Bediya, was named in the Dehati
Nalisi, the eyewitnesses have not supported the prosecution's case and have turned
hostile with respect to him. It is further submitted that Vicky Jaiswal has already
been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11413 of 2026 passed in M.Cr.C.
No. 11413 of 2026. Therefore, they seek parity. They are having no criminal
history of same nature. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in trial as well as
investigation and would make themselves available as and when required. They
would abide by the terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Under these
grounds, counsel for the applicants prayed for bail.
5. Learned PP for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for
dismissal of this application.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without
commenting on the merits of the case, application is allowed. It is hereby directed
that the applicants shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the applicant:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9968
4 MCRC-12888-2026
i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond
executed by him;
ii). The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may
be;
iii). 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
them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case
may be;
iv) The applicant will not commit any other offence or will not repeat the
offence in future. In case offence of same nature is repeated, this bail order shall
automatically stand cancelled;
v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
and
vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)
