Girraj Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J

This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail relating to Crime No.01/2026 registered at Police Station -Noorabad District - Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 196(1), 353(3), 296(A), 351(2) of BNS.

As per the prosecution Story that the complainant Rinku Jatav submits a written application on 30-12-2025 to the SHO Noorabad, the matter was inquired by the police and during the inquiry the statements of the applicant Riku Jatav and witness Bhima, son of Radheshyam Maurya, age 27 years, resident of Phad Ka Pura Bamor, Police Station Bamor,District Morena were recorded. In their respective statements, they stated that on December 26, 2025, Girraj Kanshana, son of Sabharam Kansana, resident of Girgauni, uploaded a videofrom a Facebook account named Girraj Kanshana Raj Patel. In this video, Girraj) Kanshana abused and threatened Bhim Army founder Shri Chandrashekhar Azad (National President of the Azad Samaj Party), Shri Ravindra Bhati Gurjar (National General Secretary of the Azad Samaj Party), and Shri Damodar Singh Yadav (National Core Committee Member of the Azad Samaj Party), and insulted the Scheduled Castes by calling them "blue-collared." This hurt the sentiments of the Scheduled Castes and Bhim Army workers, and there is a Strong possibility of communal and caste-based conflicts arising, disrupting communal harmony. This could lead to public peace. As the act of Girraj Kashna is punishable under section 196(1), 353(2), 296, 351( ), 296, 351 (2) BNS, the crime has been registered and taken into investigation.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant has been in custody since 06.01.2026. The investigation is complete. The offence is triable by JMFC. He is having no criminal antecedents. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. The applicant is permanent resident of District - Morena (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion and tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and 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 trial Court/Committal Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;

ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

iii) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv) The applicant shall not repeat the offence similar to the offence of same nature, which he is accused, failing which this bail application shall stand cancelled automatically.

v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

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

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.