Deepansu @ Anurag vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Subodh Abhyankar, J

They are heard. Perused the case diary / challan papers.

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.), as he is implicated in connection with Crime No.1405/2025 registered at Police Station Lasudiya District-Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 105,110 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 & section 134 of the Motor Vehciles Act. The applicant is in custody since 11.11.2025.

Allegation against the applicant is that he was involved in the aforesaid case wherein the applicant and coaccused persons, namely Shivam, Devraj, and Rohit is of culpable homicide of two young persons, namely Krishnalpal Singh Tawar and Ayush Rathore, who died on the night of 8.11.2025 at around 2.00 AM in the night. It is alleged that the applicant and the other co-accused persons were riding in a black coloured Scorpio vehicle, which was purchased by brother of the co-accused Shivam on 7.11.2025, and it is also alleged that all the other co-accused persons after consuming liqour were driving the vehicle rashly and negligently at AB Road Indore at Vijay Nagar Area, and dashed the same against a motor cylce which was being driven by one Ayush Rathore/deceased, and two other persons, namely Krishnalpal Singh Tawar and Shreyansh Rathore, were the pillion rider. It is further submitted that Ayush Rathore and Krishnapal Singh Tawar both died on the spot, and Shreyansh Rathore was severely injured.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that although the applicant and other co-accused persons were intoxicated, there is nothing on record to suggest that they had consumed alcahol and even otherwise, the vehicle was driven by the co-accused Devraj, whose negligence cannot be attributed to the present applicant, and he cannot be held liable for the same.

Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the applicant is a young student and there are no criminal antecedents, and is lodged in jail since 11.11.2025, and the conclusion of the trial will take a sufficiently long time, thus, the bail application deserves to be allowed.

Counsel for the objector on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that the applicant was sitting in the vehicle-Scorpio car along with other co-accused persons, and they could have stopped Devraj from driving the vehicle in such a negligent manner and since they also fled from the spot despite knowing that three other persons have suffered grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, no case for the grant of bail is made out.

Counsel for the respondent/State has also opposed the prayer and has submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out.

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, it is found that although counsel for the applicant has mentioned that the applicant is a student, but has not made any efforts to demonstrate that he is a student and has not filed any documents regarding his education. It is also found that the applicant was occupying the vehicle at the time when the incident took place, and thus it cannot be said that he was not involved in the aforesaid offence. The case diary also reveals that the aforesaid vehicle was being driven at the speed of 100 KM per hour in the busy area of the city, and thus, it cannot be said that the applicant was not at all in a position to control the driving of the co-accused Devraj, in such circumstances, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant at this stage. However, the applicant can renew his prayer after the charge sheet is filed, which shall be decided on its own merits.

Accordingly, the MCRC stands dismissed.