Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hanumant Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4568
1 MCRC-5433-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5433 of 2026
HANUMANT RAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prem Singh Bhadouria - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This is the first application under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of bail. He has been arrested on 17.10.2025 in connection with Crime No.273 of 2023 registered at Police Station Badoni, District Datia (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC.
As per prosecution story, on 03.09.2023, the informant Smt. Kamalabai lodged a report to the effect that about two years ago, her son Govinda Rawat, aged about 20 years, had gone to Indore along with her brother's son Hanumat Rawat (present applicant), but he did not return. On the basis of this information, Missing Person Report No. 27/23 was registered. During the course of investigation, when Hanumat Rawat (present applicant) was interrogated, he disclosed that he, Govinda Rawat, his wife Anita, and their children were living together in a house belonging to Kailash Kushwaha at Khanpura, Tehsil Mandideep, District Raisen (M.P.).
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/5/2026 6:29:00 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4568 2 MCRC-5433-2026 During that time, he noticed that Govinda Rawat had an illicit relationship with his wife Anita, which caused him extreme distress. As a result, he planned to kill Govinda.
It was further alleged that in the month of January 2021, one evening, he sent his wife Anita and children to the market to purchase household items and thereafter, he and Govinda consumed liquor together. When Govinda became intoxicated, he strangulated him with intention to kill. When he felt that Govinda had died, he disposed of the dead body by dumping it into the septic tank inside the same house, covered it with a lid, and sealed it with cement. When his wife and children returned from the market, he told them that Govinda had gone back to his home. Thereafter, he started living with his wife and children in Indore. On the basis of the information given by the accused, the police went to the house of Kailash Kushwaha at Khanpura, and at the instance of Hanumat Rawat (present applicant), excavation was carried out at the indicated place. During excavation, a jacket and pants were seen floating inside the septic tank, along with a human skeletal structure, which was taken out. Information was then sent to Police Station Industrial Area Satlapur, where Merg No. 45/25 was registered for further proceedings. On the basis of the aforesaid actions, alleged Crime No.273 of 2025 was registered against the accused at Police Station Baroni, District Datia, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation is continuing.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution story is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/5/2026 6:29:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4568 3 MCRC-5433-2026 wholly unreliable and rests primarily on an alleged memorandum statement attributed to the applicant, which by itself is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be treated as substantive proof of guilt, particularly at the stage of consideration of bail. There is no independent eyewitness to the alleged incident, and the entire case of the prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in the month of January 2021, whereas the missing report was lodged only on 03.09.2023, after an unexplained delay of nearly two years. This inordinate and unexplained delay strikes at the root of the prosecution case and creates serious doubt regarding the truthfulness and credibility of the allegations. The prosecution has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation as to why no report was lodged earlier despite the alleged disappearance of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that, as of now, there is no direct medical or forensic evidence on record to conclusively establish that the skeletal remains allegedly recovered belong to Govinda Rawat or the death was homicidal in nature. The recovery of bones from a septic tank after a long lapse of time, cannot be considered strong incriminating material against the applicant. Even if the alleged recovery is taken at its face value, it does not establish either the cause of death or the direct involvement of the applicant beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that after the death of the applicant's grandfather, late Badamsingh, the agricultural land standing in the name of the grandfather in the revenue records was mutated in the names of the applicant's father Narayan and his uncle Ranjor Singh. Subsequently, the applicant's father Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/5/2026 6:29:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4568 4 MCRC-5433-2026 sold the said land. The complainant had been demanding a share of the sale proceeds from the applicant's father, which he refused to give. Owing to this property dispute and personal grudge, the complainant has engineered the present false case against the applicant. It is also submitted that the alleged motive of an illicit relationship is based solely on bald allegations and has not been corroborated by any independent, reliable or credible evidence. Mere suspicion or an alleged motive, without substantive proof, cannot form the basis for denial of bail, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is further submitted that the complainant had earlier climbed onto a water tank at Ghughsi and attempted to commit suicide, and thereafter levelled allegations against the police of Police Station Baroni. Due to the pressure and influence exerted by the complainant, the police, acting under such influence, have falsely registered the present offence against the applicant without there being any credible or independent material connecting him with the alleged crime.
It is further submitted that the prosecution story is wholly unreliable and is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no independent eyewitness to the alleged incident and at the time of the alleged recovery, the house from which the skeletal remains were recovered was not in the exclusive possession of the applicant. The prosecution has failed to clearly establish whether the house was found locked or open at the time of recovery, nor has it demonstrated that the applicant had exclusive access to or control over the said premises. It is further pointed out that the prosecution has not clarified whether the house was lying vacant or was accessible to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/5/2026 6:29:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4568 5 MCRC-5433-2026 other persons. It is further submitted that in the absence of clear and cogent evidence regarding the condition of the premises and its possession, namely, whether the house was locked or open and who was in control thereof the alleged recovery cannot be said to be free from doubt. It is further contended that a recovery effected from a place neither owned by the applicant nor proved to be under his exclusive possession loses much of its evidentiary value and cannot be treated as a strong incriminating circumstance against the applicant, particularly at the stage of consideration of bail.It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 17.10.2025 and there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, as most of the material witnesses are either family members or official witnesses, and the alleged place of occurrence has already been inspected and documented by the investigating agency. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Datia and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Proseutor for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection submitting that the applicant has been charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder and causing the disappearance of evidence, offences which are extremely grave and have serious ramifications for public order and the rule of law. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the applicant himself disclosed details regarding the commission of the crime, including his motive, the manner in which the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/5/2026 6:29:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4568 6 MCRC-5433-2026 deceased was strangulated, and the concealment of the body in a septic tank. Acting on the information provided by the applicant, the police recovered skeletal remains along with the deceased's clothing from the location pointed out by the applicant. This recovery, made at his instance, constitutes strong corroborative evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and directly implicates the applicant in the crime. It is further that the motive for the offence is clear and natural. The applicant suspected that the deceased, Govinda Rawat, had an illicit relationship with his wife, which provided a sufficient reason to commit the offence. This motive is corroborated by the applicant's own statements and is reinforced by the circumstances of the concealment of the body. The presence of a plausible and consistent motive, together with the recovery at his instance, forms a strong chain of circumstantial evidence establishing prima facie culpability. It is also submitted that the delay in lodging the missing person report does not weaken the prosecution case, as the applicant deliberately concealed the crime, misled family members, and created a false narrative that the deceased had gone to Indore for work. The delay is thus explained by the applicant's own conduct and cannot be used to question the credibility of the prosecution. It is further submitted that DNA testing has established that the skeletal remains recovered belong to the deceased, Govinda Rawat, and were biologically related to his family members, providing scientific corroboration of the prosecution case. The skeletal remains were recovered precisely from the location indicated by the applicant, which strengthens the evidentiary value of his disclosure. It is further submitted that the applicant's conduct Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/5/2026 6:29:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4568 7 MCRC-5433-2026 after the alleged incident indicates an attempt to evade detection and tamper with evidence. He vacated the premises, misled family members, and concealed the crime, demonstrating a likelihood of influencing witnesses or interfering with the investigation if released on bail. The claim of false implication due to family dispute is baseless, as it is unrelated to the recovery of the deceased's skeletal remains and the applicant's own admissions during investigation. It is further submitted that the offences alleged are punishable with life imprisonment or death, and the prima facie evidence available against the applicant is strong. Granting bail in such a serious case would not only jeopardize the investigation but would also send a negative message to society regarding the administration of justice.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. The applicant is facing serious allegations under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to the murder of Govinda Rawat and the subsequent concealment of his body to destroy evidence. The investigation conducted by the police reveals that the applicant himself furnished statements detailing the commission of the offence, including the motive, the method of assault, and the deliberate disposal of the deceased's body in a septic tank. Acting upon the information provided by the applicant, the police successfully recovered skeletal remains and clothing from the exact location indicated by him. This recovery, in conjunction with corroborative DNA analysis establishing a biological relationship of the remains with the deceased's family, constitutes strong prima facie evidence against the applicant.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/5/2026 6:29:00 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4568 8 MCRC-5433-2026 This Court notes that the applicant's conduct after the alleged offence demonstrates a clear attempt to mislead family members and evade detection and by providing false information regarding the whereabouts of the deceased and concealing the body, the applicant not only obstructed the investigation but also created a reasonable apprehension that, if released on bail, he could influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or otherwise interfere with the course of justice. The plea of false implication on the ground of family enmity or property dispute is unsubstantiated when considered against the strong circumstantial and forensic evidence linking the applicant to the offence.
It is also observed that the nature of the offences alleged is of the highest gravity. Offences punishable under Section 302 IPC involve the intentional deprivation of human life, and Section 201 IPC involves deliberate acts intended to destroy evidence, thereby frustrating the process of justice. The law recognizes that such offences demand careful scrutiny before granting bail, as the very object of pre-trial custody is to prevent tampering with evidence, ensure the presence of the accused during trial, and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
In the present case, the chain of circumstantial evidence, the direct involvement of the applicant in leading the police to the recovered remains, and the corroborative scientific evidence collectively indicate strong prima facie culpability. Granting bail at this stage would not only compromise the investigation but would also undermine the very purpose of pre-trial detention in cases of serious offences.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/5/2026 6:29:00 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4568 9 MCRC-5433-2026 This Court has also considered the submission advanced on behalf of the applicant questioning the validity of the recovery on the ground that the house from which the skeletal remains were recovered was not in his exclusive possession and the prosecution has not specifically established whether the house was found locked or open, or whether it was lying vacant or accessible to others at the relevant time. However, at this stage, such contentions cannot be accepted to dilute the evidentiary value of the recovery, as the material on record prima facie indicates that the recovery was effected from the very place pointed out by the applicant during the course of investigation, and the recovery was made pursuant to his disclosure. The fact that the house may not stand in the name of the applicant or other persons may have had access to the premises does not, by itself, render the recovery doubtful at the stage of consideration of bail, particularly when the recovery is supported by other surrounding circumstances and scientific evidence. These aspects are matters of appreciation of evidence and are required to be tested during trial. At the present stage, the submission regarding the condition and possession of the premises does not create such doubt as would justify the grant of bail to the applicant.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for release on bail. The gravity of the offences, coupled with the risk of interference with evidence and witnesses, outweighs any personal or family circumstances that may be relied upon by the applicant.
Accordingly, the application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/5/2026 6:29:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4568 10 MCRC-5433-2026 hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/5/2026 6:29:00 PM