Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Jaat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22630
1 MCRC-28849-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28849 of 2025
RAJESH JAAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Satyendra Kumar Vyas - Senior Advocate with Shri Amit Vyas-
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Singh Panwar- G.A. for the State.
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar - Senior Advocate with Shri Bablu Patel-
Advocate for the objector.
ORDER
They are heard. Perused the challan papers.
2] This is the applicant's second bail application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S./ 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he/ she is implicated in connection with Crime No.220/2023 registered at Police Station Satwas, District Dewas (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 450, 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC , and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The applicant is in custody since 04.07.2023. His first bail application M.Cr.C. No.16250 of 2025 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2025 temporarily on the ground of marriage of his daughter.
3] The allegation against the applicant is of his involvement in the aforesaid Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 20-08-2025 18:28:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22630 2 MCRC-28849-2025 case of double murder, wherein two persons namely Kailash and his son Raju died due to gunshot injuries.
4] Shri S.K. Vyas, learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant in the present case has been falsely implicated, as admittedly in the FIR it is mentioned by the complainant Anil Godara that all the accused came to the spot armed with guns and sticks, and Varun fired upon the father of the complainant, whereas, the present applicant Rajesh also fired upon the brother of the complainant Rajesh @ Raju, and co-accused Suresh also fired upon Sunil, which hit him in his leg, and the other accused persons started assaulting the complainant party with iron rod and sticks. Learned senior counsel has submitted that a material improvisation has been made by the prosecution witnesses after finding that the gunshot injuries suffered by the father of the complainant was from one fire arm only, which was used by the co-accused Varun, whereas, from the possession of the applicant, a country made pistol has been seized, of which there is no injury caused to any person.
5] Learned senior counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the deposition of the witnesses to submit that now the witnesses are saying that the gun held by the co-accused Varun was taken by the applicant Rajesh, and thereafter, the same gun was taken from Rajesh by the co-accused Suresh. It is submitted that apparently, all the gunshot injuries have been caused by the co-accused Varun only, and in such circumstances, when the applicant has also suffered grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body, which have not been explained by the prosecution, he deserves to be released on bail.
6] Shri Vyas, has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 20-08-2025 18:28:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22630 3 MCRC-28849-2025 photographs of the applicant in the injured state while he was hospitalized. In support of his submissions, Shri Vyas has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shivji and others Vs. State of M.P. reported as AIR SUPREME COURT 552 and Mitter Sen and others Vs. The State of U.P. reported as AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1156. 7] Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned senior counsel for the objector, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that looking to the fact that it is a case of double murder, no case for grant of bail is made out, also considering the fact that the applicant is a rank offender, as against him as many as eleven cases have also been registered. It is also submitted that even if the injuries have been caused to the present applicant, the applicant's side has exceeded its right of private defence by killing two persons of the complainants' side.
8] In rebuttal, learned senior counsel, Shri Vyas has submitted that the other cases registered against the applicant are of minor nature. 9] Counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer.
10] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case-diary, on the face of it, it is found that two persons have died in a dispute which arose because the applicant's dog started barking while they were passing from the shop of the complainants' side, although, the dispute was indeed deep rooted, which resulted in the culmination of the aforesaid incident. It is also found that the incident took place at around 8 o'clock in the morning, whereas, the FIR has been lodged at 02:13 in the noon, and the name of the applicant along with his overt act was also mentioned in the FIR. From the injuries suffered by the present applicant in the incident, his Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 20-08-2025 18:28:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22630 4 MCRC-28849-2025 presence is also established in the incident. In such circumstances, considering his criminal antecedents, and the fact that two persons have died in the incident, the complainants' side might have tried to defend themselves by assaulting the applicant, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
11] So far as the decisions relied upon by the senior counsel for the applicant in the case of Shivji (Supra) and Mitter Sen (Supra) are concerned, the same are distinguishable on facts.
12] Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 20-08-2025
18:28:18