Ankit Verma And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

The present first bail applications 483 of BNSS filed by the applicants No.1 to 3, namely, Ankit Verma, Rukmani Rajput and Bhupendra respectively for grant of bail. They have been arrested on 17.10.2025 by Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.357 of 2025 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(6), 61(2), 115(2), 127(2) of BNS, 2023.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Ravindra Kushwah had lodged a reported to the effect that he is a resident of Village Piparsewa, Police Station Rithaura Kalan, and works as a laborer (beldaari). He lives with his parents, brother Ravi, and sister-in-law Manisha. One Omwati Kushwah, who is his relative (sister-in-law by relation), used to tell him that she would introduce him to her friend Rukmani Bhitarwar. On 15.10.2025, at around 2:30 PM, Omwati called him and told him to come to Gwalior, assuring him that all arrangements had been made and the girl (Rukmani) was also ready. Believing her, he went to her house near Kalpi Bridge around 6–7 PM on his motorcycle, where he found Omwati alone. After some time, she brought Rukmani back to the room. The three of them then had dinner together. Afterwards, Omwati took the complainant and Rukmani to Govardhan Colony, to the house of Rukmani’s brother Aditya, and left them in a room before going out. Around 11:30 PM, Rukmani asked him to remove his clothes. At that very moment, Omwati (applicant No.2), Kaushal Parihar, Ankit Verma(applicant No.1), and Aditya Bhadoriya entered the room and accused him of committing a wrongful act with the girl. They told him that they would file a rape case (Section 376 IPC) against him. Even Rukmani began telling him that she would lodge such a case. The accused persons then tied his hands and legs, stuffed a cloth in his mouth, and beat him with kicks and punches, causing swelling on his left eye, both cheeks, and blunt injuries on his left arm. Co-accused Kaushal told him that if he didn’t want to be falsely implicated, he must pay ₹10 lakh, otherwise they would frame him in a false case. Out of fear, he gave ₹8,000 in cash from his pocket to Omwati. The accused persons then called someone on the phone, demanding that he should arrange for the remaining money. Ankit (applicant No.1) told him that it was better to agree to their demand than go to jail, while Aditya took away his motorcycle keys. He further stated that on 16.10.2025, around 5:00 AM, the accused continued to beat and threaten him. Kaushalendra took the SIM card out of his mobile phone and dropped him at a street corner, warning him to arrange the money by 12 noon, failing which they would have him falsely implicated and he would “rot in jail for life.” After this, the complainant called his brother Kallu, who took him home, where he narrated the entire incident. On the basis of such allegations, alleged crime was registered against the accused persons under Sections 308(2), 308(6), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). During the investigation, a site map of the scene was prepared and the statements of the complainant were recorded. On the basis of the collected evidence, Sections 115(2) and 127(2) of the BNS were added to the case, and the applicant/accused was arrested. Further investigation in the matter is still under progress.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations made in the prosecution story are highly improbable, inconsistent, and motivated. It is contended that the complainant has given an exaggerated version of events, converting what was, at most, a personal or consensual interaction into a criminal case with the sole purpose of exerting pressure and extracting money. The entire prosecution case, according to the defence, suffers from material contradictions and inherent improbabilities. It is further submitted that the FIR does not assign any specific or overt role to the applicants and makes only vague and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons collectively. It is submitted that such general allegations, without any specific attribution of act or intent, do not fulfil the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 308(2), 308(6), 61(2), 115(2), and 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

With regard to applicant No.1 - Ankit Verma, it is contended that his name appears in the FIR only on the basis of a statement that he allegedly suggested to the complainant to accept the demand rather than face imprisonment. Such a statement, even if taken at face value, does not constitute an offence under the invoked provisions. There is no allegation that applicant No.1 had participated in any act of assault, extortion, or criminal intimidation.

As to applicant No.2- Rukmani Rajput, it is submitted that she has been falsely implicated merely because she was present with the complainant prior to the alleged incident and the complainant’s own narration indicates that she accompanied him voluntarily, and there is no evidence of her participation in any alleged conspiracy. The suggestion that she threatened to implicate the complainant in a false case appears to be an afterthought, inserted only to lend weight to an otherwise weak story.

With respect to applicant No.3- Bhupendra, it is submitted that his name does not appear in the original FIR and he has been brought into the case during the course of investigation without any substantive material linking him to the alleged occurrence. His implication is based solely on suspicion or hearsay, which is insufficient to sustain the charges levelled against him.

It is further argued that there has been an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the medical evidence does not support the version of assault described by the complainant. The prosecution has also failed to recover any incriminating article, such as the alleged extorted money, the mobile SIM card, or the motorcycle keys said to have been taken by the accused.

It is further argued that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and therefore, the applicants are entitled to the benefit of bail. The applicants have been in judicial custody since 17.10.2025. Their further detention is not required for the purpose of investigation. The applicants are permanent residents of District Gwalior and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence if released on bail. They are ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made out.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State vehemently has opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature and supported by the statements of the complainant as well as other witnesses recorded during investigation. It is further contended that the applicants, in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy, wrongfully confined the complainant, subjected him to physical assault, and attempted to extort a large sum of money by threatening to falsely implicate him in a case of rape. The role of each accused, including the present applicants, has been clearly reflected during investigation, and the offences under the relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are non-bailable and grave, warranting custodial detention. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress, and the release of the applicants at this stage may adversely affect the ongoing inquiry. There exists a likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, given that the accused persons and the complainant belong to the same locality. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail applications be rejected.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case 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 merits of the case, this applications are allowed and it is directed that the applicants be released on bail upon each of them 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 their appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court, subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants:-

The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;

The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

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 from disclosing such facts to the Court tor to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The applicants 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;

The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The applicants will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance. Certified copy as per Rules.