Harsh Kushwaha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J

This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.391/2025 registered at Police Station - Khitola, District Jabalpur for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of| BNS, 2023 and Sec. 25 & 27 of Arms Act. Applicant is in detention since 15.12.2025. His first application was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to renew the prayer after filing of the charge sheet vide order dated 14.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.No.60313/2025.

As per prosecution story, .on 11.12.2025 at around 13:30 hours Nanu Vishwakarma called complainant through mobile phone and informed that his cousin brother Dharmendra Singh @Chintu Thakur was shot dead by two unknown persons . F.I.R was registered. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

The counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. He is behind bars since 15.12.2025. It is further submitted that applicant aged about 25 years old. Charge-sheet has been filed. The only role attributed to the applicant is of keeping the mobile which was used by the main accused at the time of committing offence. Applicant was not present at the time of committing the offence. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He has further submitted that the trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the same by submitting that looking to the seriousness of the offence, involvement of the applicant cannot be ruled out, therefore, no discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant.

Heard the submissions made at the bar and perused the case diary.

Considering the age of the applicant 25 years, the fact that charge sheet has already been filed, he is behind bar since 15.12.2025, trial of the case will take time to conclude and also considering the role attributed to the present applicant to the extent of recovery of mobile phone used by the main accused otherwise there is no active participation of the present applicant, the fact that applicant has no criminal antecedents and considering the principle that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, I deem it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial. In addition to this, (1) He will not act in any manner which influence the proceedings of trial or influence any of the witnesses; (2) He will not indulge in any criminal activity by musing the liberty granted by this order; (3) He shall remain present at the time of trial without any default; (4) He shall make himself available as and when required in trial (5) He shall provide his current address and his functional mobile number to the concerned police station and concerned trial court (6) He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It is made clear that if any of the above conditions are violated, it is open for the prosecution to pray for cancellation of bail and this order shall stand automatically cancelled and police and trial Court shall be at liberty to commit him in jail.

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.

Learned counsel for the State submits that now the case papers is available. When the case was called in the morning, counsel for the State submitted that case papers are not available. It is to observe that this court has repeatedly requested to keep the complete case diary available when the matter is called out for consideration and it is the duty of the concerning officer/ I.O to provide the complete case diary to the counsel for the State but in many matters it is found that such papers are not provided and the court has to ask for the case papers and then only the matter could be proceeded further otherwise matter is required to be adjourned for some more days. Therefore, considering this aspect and negligent conduct on the part of concerned officer, the court is of the opinion to impose cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the concerning officer.

However, at this stage, counsel for State submits that such mistake will not be repeated as he has conveyed this information to the higher officer to issue necessary instructions to the concerned officer/ I.Os. Considering the fact that the matter is required to be adjourned again and again due to such non-cooperation on the part of the officer, I am of the opinion that Rs.10,000/- is required to be imposed as cost upon the concerning I.O. which shall be deposited by him within seven working days with the M.P. High Court Legal Services Committee and receipt of the same shall be submitted to the Registry. If the amount of cost is not deposited within stipulated time, the Registry shall inform the court accordingly. It is again observed with further warning that if such mistake is repeated by the concerning officers/ I.O. then court will view the same with all seriousness. Certified copy as per rules.