Ranjeet Jat @ Ranjeet Kisanwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20232
1 WP-29660-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
th
ON THE 24 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 29660 of 2026
RANJEET JAT @ RANJEET KISANWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jayesh Gurnani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pradyumna Kibe, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
Per: Justice Subodh Abhyankar
The present petition is filed in the nature of habeas corpus seeking
following reliefs:-
7.1 That, the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly
directed to release the detenu Mr. Radheshyam Jat and Mr. Surendra Yadav forthwith
7.2 That, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay appropriate compensation of Rs.
5,00,000/- to the petitioner and detenus for violating their fundamental as well as legal rights by
illegally detaining the detenus and for causing unnecessary hardship
7.3 That, departmental inquiry and penal action may kindly be initiated against the respondents
and their subordinate police officers for illegally detaining the detenus
7.4 That, the cost of this petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner and any other relief
which this Hon’ble Court considers appropriate in the light of equity, justice and good conscience
may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."
2. The petitioner happens to be a member of the National Educated
Youth Union (NEYU) registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh
Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, of which corpuses namely
Radheshyam Jat and Surendra Yadav (hereinafter referred as "Detenus") are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 25-07-2026
16:47:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20232
2 WP-29660-2026
also members. According to the petitioner, the detenues have been detained

at the instance of the Assistant Commissioner of Police for their proposed
peaceful protest, which they intended to carry out, which was scheduled to
be held on 23.07.2026 and for that purpose, a representation was also made
to the Assistant Commissioner of Police Zone 4, stating that then wanted to
organize procession in support of the students who were protesting in
support of their demands at Jantar Mantar at New Delhi to show their
solidarity with the students of New Delhi, this representaiton was sent to the
concerned police station from where the procession was to proceed.
However, instead of granting them the permission, both the detenues have
been detained.
3. Yesterday, when the matter came up for hearing before this Court,
it was also directed to the counsel for the respondent/state to file their reply
and today the reply has been filed, contending that the detenues have been
detained under section 170 of BNSS with a condition of release also, which
are mentioned in the order by the Assistant Commissioner of Police dated
23.07.2026. Thus, no case for interference is made out in the present case as
the petitioner has other remedy against the order passed under section 170 of
BNSS.
4. In response, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
condition imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police cannot be
fulfilled by the detenues for the reasons that apart from the bail bonds and
surety, it is also directed that a government servant must also furnish the bail
of the detenues and only then they may be released on bail; otherwise, they
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 25-07-2026
16:47:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20232
3 WP-29660-2026
will be sent to jail.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/state on the other hand,
submitted that it was the discretion of the Assistant Commissioner of Police
to pass the order and the conditions have also been imposed taking into
account the previous conduct of the detenues in th year 2024, wherein the
detenues had also tried to disturb the peace by violent protest.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the
record, it is apparent that the detenues have been detained under section 170
of BNSS and have been asked to furnish the bail bond as provided under
section 130 of BNSS. The relevant part of the order reads as under :-
'' 130 0 0 0 0
अनावेदक को धारा भा ना सु स के अधीन आदेश दया गया क वह
1,00,000 (
जॉंच समा  होने तक प रशांती कायम रखने के िलए "पये एक
) 1,00,000 ( )
लाख ". क $ %ितभूित एवं "पये एक लाख ". का बंधप ( व

शासक $य कम )चार* +ारा जमानत ,व"प जमानत %,तुत कर देते ह - तो उ /

अनावेदक को अिभर 0ा से मु / कया जायेगा अ 1यथा अनावेदक को जेल

भेजा जावेगा।
,
अनावेदक क $ ओर से अिधव /ा 5ी बादल जैन के उप 7,थत हुए ,वयं का मेमो
130
बंध प ( मुचलका %,तुत कया । अनावेदक +ारा सुनवाई के दौरान धारा
0 0 0 0
भा ना सु स म : जार * आदेश के पालन म : शोध 0मता यो ;य %ितभूित स हत
1,00,000/-
"पये का बंध प ( का आदेश पालन करने म : असफल रहने पर

अनावेदक के =व"> िन ">ादेश अधी 0क 7जला जेल को संबोिधत कर जार *

कया ।
38
अनावेदक राधे ?याम उफ ) राधे जाट =पता दयाराम जाट उ A साल िन.

ए Bपायर =वCD 1यू आर.ट .ओ. रोड भंवरकुंआ इ 1दौर का जेल िन "> आदेश
113 1865
थाना भंवरकुआ %धान आर 0क कमलेश आर 0क धम G1H को मय
''
अनावेदक के 7जला जेल %े=षत करने हेतु सुपुद ) कया गया।

(emphasis supplied)
7. A perusal of the order indicates that although the detenues are
directed to be released upon providing a bail bond as prescribed, this Court
believes that the requirement in the said order for a government servant to
furnish the bond is one that the detenue will likely be unable to meet. Any
government servant concerned about his/her job would be unlikely to
provide bail bonds for the detenues. Therefore, such condition imposed upon
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 25-07-2026
16:47:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20232
4 WP-29660-2026
the detenues amounts to a denial of bail.

8. The grant of bail subject to onerous conditions, is ordinarily in
exceptional circumstances and cannot be as a matter of course, in “Yashik
Jindal vs. Union of India” reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 417, under
similar circumstances, this Court had observed as follows:
“3. This Court has deprecated imposition of such onerous conditions previously-
notably in the recent order in “Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India” (Criminal
Appeal No. 186 of 2023) decided on 20.01.2023.
4. Following the order in Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India, the condition
requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.2 crores is hereby set aside. The Court is
informed that the petitioner had borrowed sums of money and deposited the same.
It is open for them to seek withdrawal/refund of such amounts. They shall,
however, comply with the other conditions imposed on them.”
9. Although the present petition is in the nature of habeas corpus,
however, considering the fact that the detenues have been detained and an
onerous condition has been imposed by the impugned order, instead of
relegating them to take course of other remedy available to them under the
law, we are inclined to allow the present petition with a direction that the
detenues be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with one solvent surety each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned authority for
their regular appearance before the said Court/concerned authority during
trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the court
concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated
under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 25-07-2026
16:47:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20232
5 WP-29660-2026


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 25-07-2026
16:47:59