[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Pal Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10193
1 MCRC-11057-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11057 of 2026
VIJAY PAL YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Rahul Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajendra Singh Yadav Dy. Advocate General for
respondent/State.
Mr. Pavan Singh Raghuwanshi and Mr. Hari Krishan Singh Chauhan -
Advocates for the respondent [COMP].
ORDER
This Sixth bail application has been filed by applicant under Section
483 of BNSS for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.240 of 2023
registered at Police Station Shamshabad, District Vidisha (M.P.) for offence
punishable under Sections 304-B, 34, 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 21.02.2024 passed in MCRC No.4678/2024, his second bail
application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 02.07.2024 passed in
MCRC No.16716/2024, his third bail application was also dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 8571/2025 passed in MCRC No.8571/2025 by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10193
2 MCRC-11057-2026
Coordinate Bench of this Court, his forth bail application was dismissed on
merits vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 27614 of 2025.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated primarily because he is the husband of the deceased.
Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 13.02.2026,
whereby the Trial Court altered the charges against the applicant to include
Section 302 of the IPC.
4. Consequently, the applicant moved an application under Section 217
of the Cr.P.C., and subsequently approached this Court via M.Cr.C. No.
8680/2026. This Court, vide order dated 20.02.2026, allowed the petition and
directed the Trial Court to afford the applicant an adequate opportunity to
recall and cross-examine twenty-three (23) witnesses in accordance with the
law.
5. It is further submitted that because of this procedural development,
the trial is likely to be prolonged, thereby adversely affecting the applicant's
right to a speedy trial. The applicant has already suffered incarceration for 2
years and 8 months. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713] , counsel submits that
long-term detention without the possibility of a timely trial warrants the grant
of bail. On these grounds, he prays for the release of the applicant on bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, as well as counsel for the
complainant, vehemently opposed the bail application. They submitted that a
direction for a speedy trial has already been issued by this Court vide order
dated 04.11.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 50208/2025, whereby the Trial Court was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10193
3 MCRC-11057-2026
directed to conclude the proceedings within three months.
7. Subsequently, the Trial Court sought an extension of time to
conclude the trial through PUD. This request was considered and disposed of
by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2026 in M.Cr.C. No.12208/2026,
whereby a further extension of two months from the date of the order was
granted to decide the case.
8. Counsel further contended that since the trial is nearing its
conclusion under the active supervision of this Court, the judgment in K.A.
Najeeb (supra) relied upon by the applicant is inapplicable to the present
facts. Under these circumstances, they prayed for the dismissal of the instant
bail application.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The applicant seeks bail primarily on the ground of prolonged
incarceration and the potential delay caused by the alteration of charges to
Section 302 of the IPC, which necessitated the recall of twenty-three
witnesses. While this Court is cognizant of the applicant's right to a speedy
trial as highlighted in K.A. Najeeb (supra) , the specific facts of this case
indicate that the trial is not in a state of stagnation.
11. On the contrary, this Court has been actively monitoring the
progress of the trial, as evidenced by the orders dated 04.11.2025 and
16.03.2026. The Trial Court has already been granted a final extension of
two months to conclude the proceedings. Given that the trial is at its fag end
and is being conducted under a time-bound direction from this Court, the
argument regarding an indefinite delay does not hold water at this stage.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10193
4 MCRC-11057-2026
12. Furthermore, the gravity of the newly added charge under Section
302 of the IPC, coupled with the fact that previous bail applications were
dismissed on merits, disentitles the applicant to the relief sought. The
procedural right to recall witnesses under Section 217 of the Cr.P.C., while
granted to ensure a fair trial, cannot be used as a standalone ground for bail
when the trial is near completion.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no change in
circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The Trial Court is, however,
directed to strictly adhere to the timeline stipulated in the order dated
16.03.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 12208/2026 and conclude the trial within
the extended period.
14. Accordingly, this sixth bail application is dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)
