Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5196
1 MCRC-6608-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6608 of 2026
HARI SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav- Dy. AG for the State.
ORDER
This is the third bail application filed by the applicant u/S. 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.269/2023 registered at Police Station - Basoda Dehat District - Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 324, 34 and 498A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and enhanced Section 307 of the IPC.
2. As per the prosecution, a Dehati Nalishi was recorded by the police authorities on account of the complaint made by the complainant wherein it was stated by the complainant that she was married to the co-accused; Brijendra Raghuvanshi on 18.02.2022 as per the Hindu rituals, however soon after passing of three months the co-accused; Brijendra started taunting the complainant over her looks and the said co-accused person was asking a dowry amount of Rs. 20-25 lakhs. The present applicant along with other co- accused persons used to harass the complainant on account of demand of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:29:01 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5196 2 MCRC-6608-2026 dowry and the complainant used to tell all these things to his father and brother who tried to make the accused persons understand, however the accused persons didn't budge and started assaulting the complainant. On 07.07.2023, at around 11:30 P.M., the complainant was inside her room wherein the present applicant along with co-accused person (mother in law) arrived and her mother in law while carrying white cane of kerosene oil and poured the same over the complainant while the present applicant caught hold the complainant and thereafter the present applicant lit the matchstick due to which she sustained burned injuries on her left hand, right palm, neck and ear after which the complainant made noise due to which their neighbors arrived and thereafter the complainant dialed 100 after which the police arrived and took the complainant to the Government Hospital Basoda wherein the treatment of the complainant took place. Accordingly, offence was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Earlier, the present applicant and co-accused persons were released on Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice and during the course of investigation, offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enhanced against the present applicant and other co-accused persons, however due to lack of evidence offence under Section 307 of IPC was dropped. After the completion of the investigation, the police authorities submitted the charge-sheet before the Court below under the aforesaid sections, however at the stage of cognizance, the complainant filed a protest petition before the Court below Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:29:01 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5196 3 MCRC-6608-2026 contending that the police authorities while acting in a malafide manner had dropped offence under Section 307 of IPC and the same is prima facie made out against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. The Learned Court below while admitting the petition of the complainant took the cognizance against the present applicant and other co-accused persons under Section 307 of IPC and issued bailable warrants to the accused persons vide its order dated 08.12.2023. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present applicant along with other co-accused persons preferred revision petition challenging the impugned order passed by the Court below taking cognizance under Section 307 of IPC against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. The Session Court while entertaining the revision petition of the present applicant, initially stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 08.12.2023, however vide order dated 10.01.2026 dismissed the criminal revision preferred by the accused persons. Even, if the prosecution story is believed in toto, still, allegations against the present applicant are not made out. Investigation in the matter is already complete. The injuries sustained by the complainant do not attract the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Opinion of the doctor over the query report also admits that the injuries are not dangerous to life and the same may be self-inflicted. The applicant was earlier given notice of 41(A) of the Cr.P.C., but he never misused the liberty extended to him. The case of the applicant may also be considered in the light of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Corut in the case of ArneshKumar Vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273]. Hence, custodial interrogation is no more required. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:29:01 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5196 4 MCRC-6608-2026 applicant is aged about 63 years. Applicant is a permanent resident of District - Vidisha (M.P.). and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. The applicant is also ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as imposed by this Court and he is willing to cooperate in trial/investigation and to make himself available as and when required for the purpose of investigation/trial. Hence, he prayed for anticipatory bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the applicant was actively involved in the aforesaid incident and there is sufficient material available on record showing the active participation of the applicant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
6. From perusal of the case diary, this court finds that the alleged offence is of serious nature. The MLC report also indicates burn injuries. The applicant was instrumental in causing the burn injuries to the complaint, but luckily, the complainant escaped. Hence, only on the basis of nature of the injuries, nature of the offence cannot be ignored. Once, there are specific and overt act of the applicant alleged in the FIR, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, requirement of custodial interrogations cannot be denied.
7. Hence, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the rival contentions advanced by the parties and looking to the gravity of the offence and the act of the present applicant, this Court finds that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail at this stage. Therefore, in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:29:01 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5196 5 MCRC-6608-2026 considered opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
8. Accordingly, this application for anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA ) JUDGE Vishal Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:29:01 AM