Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16607
1 MCRC-49066-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49066 of 2024
GOVIND SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri APS Tomar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Brijendra Singh- Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
Case diary is perused.
This is the fifth application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS/439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to Crime No.107 of 2022 registered at Police Station - Mehgaon, District - Bhind (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 326 of IPC read with Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
According to the Dehati Nalisi, the complainant, Pawan Goswami, reported that Babu Soni and his sons - Govind Soni, Mukesh Soni, Gopal Soni and Rakesh Soni frequently engaged in hooliganism, which had led to an ongoing dispute. On 24.03.2022, they had also committed an assault, but due to the intervention of local residents, the matter was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 8/8/2025 10:36:38 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16607 2 MCRC-49066-2024 not reported to the police. On 25.03.2022, at around 2:00 PM, Babu Soni, alongwith his family members Govind, Mukesh, Gopal, Arjun and Rakesh Soni, as well as his associates Bhure Gurjar and Chitra Gurjar, started abusing the complainant and his brothers. When the complainant's uncle, Om Goswami, objected to the abusive language, a dispute broke out. At that point, Gopal Soni went inside and brought out a double-barreled 12-bore gun, while present applicant (Govind Soni), Babu Soni, Mukesh Soni, Rakesh, and Arjun were all armed with country-made pistols of 315 bore. They all ganged up and started firing with the intentition to kill. One bullet struck Om Goswami in the chest, causing his death on the spot. His brothers, Veeru and Ravi as well as he himself sustained gunshot wounds. Babu Soni threw acid on him and his brother Suraj, resulting in burns on their backs. His uncle was killed by a shot fired from Gopal's gun, and both he and his brother were injured. On the basis of such Dehati Nalishi, crime for the aforesaid offences was registered. Dead-body Panchnama was prepared. Postmortem was conducted. The deceased died due to injury to vital organs due to gunshot. Appellant was arrested on 30.03.2022. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant has been in custody for a considerable period and the trial is likely to take further time. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 8/8/2025 10:36:38 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16607 3 MCRC-49066-2024 to prove the applicant's role in the alleged murder, and that the recovery of the weapon is planted and doubtful.
It is further submitted that new circumstances of the applicant alleged to have arisen is that after rejection of the earlier application there is inordinate and unexplained delay in criminal trial pending against applicant for the reasons not attributed to him and it is also reflected from the order-sheets of the trial Court that the applicant has been produced from jail concerned on every occasion but on account of absence of the prosecution witnesses, that the Court was compelled to adjourn the proceedings.
The learned counsel also emphasized that this is the fifth application for regular bail, and the applicant undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses if granted bail. The applicant is stated to be in custody since 30.03.2022, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Bhind, has no criminal antecedents, and undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, if released on bail. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as counsel for the complainant had opposed the application and had prayed for its rejection by contending that the applicant was part of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, and the incident was premeditated, not sudden as well as specific overt acts are attributed to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 8/8/2025 10:36:38 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16607 4 MCRC-49066-2024 the applicant and the nature of the offence is grave and heinous, involving murder, attempt to murder, and acid attack, no case for grant of bail is made out.
After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor, and upon perusal of the case diary and material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, involving offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 147, 148, 149 (unlawful assembly with common object), 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act (use of illegal firearms). As per the case diary, the applicant is alleged to be part of an unlawful assembly that was armed with deadly weapons and opened indiscriminate fire with intent to kill, resulting in the death of the complainant's uncle on the spot and serious injuries to other family members. It is further alleged that acid was thrown on the complainant and his brother, causing serious burn injuries, indicating a well-planned and brutal attack. The role of the applicant is specific and not general. The incident was not sudden or isolated but appears to be the result of a prior dispute, culminating in a premeditated act of violence with fatal consequences. No new ground has been made out in this fifth regular bail application which was not considered earlier in the previous applications. The mere passage of time or pendency of trial does not Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 8/8/2025 10:36:38 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16607 5 MCRC-49066-2024 constitute a ground for grant of bail in such heinous offences. Granting bail at this stage may send a wrong signal to society and may also affect the progress of the trial or lead to intimidation of witnesses. Delay in trial, though a relevant factor, cannot override the seriousness of the offence in such a heinous case.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, and considering the seriousness of the offence, the specific role attributed to the applicant, and the interest of justice, this Court finds no ground to grant regular bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, this fifth regular bail application is rejected.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 8/8/2025 10:36:38 AM