Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kallu@Yakub vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10244
1 MCRC-14538-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14538 of 2026
KALLU@YAKUB
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Raj Kumar Swarnkar advocate for the applicant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal public prosecutor for State.
Shri Sunil Kumar Soni advocate for objector.
ORDER
1. This fifth application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 72/2023 registered at Police Station - Sarangpur, District Rajgarh(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 454, 307, 294, 34, 324, 120-B of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. Applicant is in judicial custody since 10.2.2023. First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.6.2023 passed in MCRC No. 23630/2023, second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.3.2024 passed in MCRC No.52456/2023; third bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 1.4.2025 passed in MCRC No. 44048/2024 and fourth bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.9.2025 passed in MCRC No. 35616/2025.
2. Heard the arguments.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 16-04-2026 20:46:11NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10244 2 MCRC-14538-2026
3. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and the relevant material on record.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter due to previous enmity. He has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant is in custody for more than three years. The material prosecution witness have been examined. As per status report, 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined and 16 witnesses are yet to be examined. Main accused Sharukh has been extended benefit of bail vide order dated 20.2.2026 passed in SLP (Cri.) No. 866/2026, co-accused Abid Khan has been extended benefit of bail vide order dated 20.6.2023 passed in MCRC No. 11565/2023; Salamat and Mannu @ Sameer have been extended benefit of bail vide orders dated 2.5.2025 and 20.3.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 19277/2025 & 10946/2026. Considering the long incarceration, the applicant be also extended benefit of bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, ably assisted by counsel for objector, opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. Learned counsel refers to 02 criminal antecedents of the applicant as mentioned in the case diary. Applicant is aged 30 years and is labourer by profession.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been sentenced to imprisonment of TRC and fine in relation to crime No. 125/2022, the applicant was acquitted in relation to crime No 395/2017. No prosecution is pending against the applicant.
7. According to the material on the case diary, Sharukh and Kallu Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 16-04-2026 20:46:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10244 3 MCRC-14538-2026 assaulted Salman Ali with knife on his head. Mannu also assaulted Salman with knife on his hand and leg. Applicant was arrested for offence punishable under Sections 457, 307, 294, 34 of IPC on 10.2.2023. He is in custody ever since. The trial is delayed. Only 11 witness out of 27 enlisted prosecution witness could be examined till date. Main accused Sharukh has been extended benefit of bail by the Supreme Court, other co- accused Salamat and Mannu @ Sameer have also been extended benefit of bail. The prosecution against the applicant Kallu is similar in nature. The trial would take time to conclude. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of the applicant will be determined after evidence in trial.
8. In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 534, the Supreme Court referred to the judgment in matter of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) SCC OnLine SC 50, a n d considered the grant of bail with reference to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and observed as under :-
32. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statue if it finds that the right of the accused under-trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal stature, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statue, bail cannot be granted. It would be run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb(supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that these observations relate to the offence punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code and Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 16-04-2026 20:46:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10244 4 MCRC-14538-2026 Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967.
10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4648/2024 decided on 28.05.2024, has observed as under :-
Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we are not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.
11. As informed, the applicant has responsibility of aged parents. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of substantial criminal past and previous conviction for any major offence, considering the socio economic status of the applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing the remaining witnesses by the applicant. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue prolonged incarceration of the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are recorded for present application only.
12. Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of the case, in the light of aforestated facts, but without commenting on the merits, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the application is allowed.
13. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant Kallu @ Yakub shall be released on bail in connection with Crime, as mentioned in first paragraph of this order, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with one surety of the same amount to Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 16-04-2026 20:46:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10244 5 MCRC-14538-2026 the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for compliance with the following conditions : (For convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of bail are also reproduced in Hindi as under):-
(1) Applicant shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the concerned court; (1) आवेदक संबंिधत यायालय के िनदशानुसार सुनवाई क येक ितिथ पर उप थत रहे गा । (2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature; (2) आवेदक समान कृ ित का केाई अपराध नह ं करे गा या उसम स मिलत नह ं होगा । (3) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer;
(3) आवेदक करण के त य से प रिचत कसी य को य या अ य प से लोभन, धमक या वचन नह ं दे गा, जससे ऐसा य ऐसे त य को यायालय या पुिलस अिधकार को कट करने से िनवा रत हो (4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;
(4) आवदे क य या अ य प से सा य के साथ छे डछाड करने का या सा ी या सा य को बहलाने- फुसलाने, दबाव डालने या धमकाने का यास नह ं करे गा ।
(5) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C./346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding examination of witnesses in attendance; (5) वचारण के दौरान, उप थत गवाह से पर ण के संबंध म आवेदक धारा ३०९ दं . .सं./ ३४६ भारतीय नाग रक सुर ा सं हता, 2023 के ावधान का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन त करे गा ।
14. This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach of any of the preconditions of bail, the trial Court may consider, on merit, cancellation of bail without any impediment from this order.
15. The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety. C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE BDJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 16-04-2026 20:46:11