logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MPHC 258 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Indore)
Case No : MISC. Criminal Case No. 34827 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
Parties : Bhalsingh Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Nitin Vyas, learned counsel. For the Respondent: Surendra Gupta, learned Government Advocate, Vikas Parmar, learned counsel.
Date of Judgment : 10-08-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 MPHC-IND 22208,
Judgment :-

1. This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of regular bail. The applicant is arrested in relation to Crime No.141/2026 registered at Police Station Aambua, District Alirajpur for the offences under Sections 296, 109(1) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The applicant is in custody since 20.05.2026.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Sanjay lodged FIR stating that he was setting in his house when the present applicant came there and demanded money to purchase tobacco from shop on 19.05.2026. When complainant refused, the present applicant abused him. When the complainant objected to the abuse, the present applicant assaulted him with axe, causing injury to his head. The wife of the present applicant intervened in the quarrel, whereupon the applicant fled from the spot after threatening the complainant with dire consequences. Accordingly, a case was registered against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in fact the incident was merely minor altercation between the father and son, during which the complainant sustained the injury inadvertently. The said incident was subsequently given exaggerated colour and was falsely projected as offence. However, better sense has prevailed and the complainant has now amicably settled the dispute with his father i.e. the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is in custody since 20.05.2026 and thus considering the aforesaid facts, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant. However, learned Government Advocate opposes the bail application pointing out that the offence alleged against the present applicant is punishable under Section 109 of the BNS and thus, the consent of the complainant has no legal significance. Accordingly, he submits that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and taking into account that there is only one injury on the head of the complainant and also the fact that the complainant is the son of the present applicant, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 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 in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court / JMFC for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that applicant shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 480(3) of BNSS.

8. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.
 
  CDJLawJournal