High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 02 MP CK 1784

Balram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench · Decided on 19 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gajendra Singh, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 484 Of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 455 words

Gajendra Singh, J

1.

The Criminal Appeal No.484/2026 & Criminal Appeal No.690/2026 under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is preferred against the order dated 07.01.2026 & 13.01.2026 in Bail Application No.04/2026 & Bail Application No.19/2026 respectively by the Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, District Dhar (MP), whereby the applications for bail on behalf of appellant Balram & Vishal apprehended on 03.01.2026 and 03.01.2026 in connection with Crime No.4/2026 registered at police station- Badnawar, District Dhar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 109(1), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 have been rejected.

2.

The allegations against the appellants are that the daughter of appellant Balram was married somewhere but she went alongwith the brother of victim Vishal Parmar and due to this Vishal Parmar was tried to kill through Maruti Car in the morning of 30.12.2025 when Vishal Parmar was going to his office by Motorcycle No.MP-13-EY-8613.

3.

This appeal has been preferred on the ground that both the appellants were not present on the spot. Missing report was lodged by Balram's daughter on 22.03.2025. There is no evidence to connect the appellants with the crime. The appellants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. He has no criminal past. The conclusion of trial will likely to take long time, hence prays for release of the appellants on bail.

4.

Counsel for the State opposed the criminal appeal but fairly submits that appellants have no criminal antecedents.

5.

Counsel for the respondent/complainant also opposed the criminal appeal.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellants were not present on the spot and they have no criminal antecedents, without commenting on the merit of the case, the criminal appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the appellants- Balram and Vishal are directed to be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with separate sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before that Court, as and when directed, during the pendency of trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 480 (3) of the BNSS, 2023.

7.

The appellants shall not contact with the victim in any way either physically or through any other mode of social media. They shall cooperate in recording the evidence and shall not seek adjournment, failing which this order shall be liable to be cancelled and the trial Court shall be within jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted by this Court without further reference to this Court.