Jagdish Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16975
1 CRA-4794-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
th
ON THE 29 OF JUNE, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4794 of 2026
JAGDISH PARMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Himanshu Pratap Singh Rathore, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Aditya Garg, public prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State.
Ms.Jaya Sharma, counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act").
2. The appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Trial Court, by which
the application for grant of regular bail filed by the appellant has been rejected.
3. The appellant is in custody in connection with Crime No. 154/2023, registered
at Police Station Kshipra, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 370-A, 201,
34, and 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.
4. The appellant seeks to be enlarged on bail, assailing the findings of the Trial
Court which refused the relief primarily citing the gravity of the offence.
FACTS IN BRIEF
5. The prosecution case originates from the registration of Crime No. 154/2023 at
Police Station Kshipra. The appellant was arrested on 05/04/2023.
6. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the
learned Trial Court subsequently framed charges against the appellant under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
6:10:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16975
2 CRA-4794-2026
Sections 302, 370-A, 201, 34, 363 IPC and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.

7. The trial is presently ongoing, and the record indicates that out of 24
prosecution witnesses, 10 have been examined in the Trial Court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
8. The appellant contends that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the present case, asserting that there is no direct evidence or specific act on record
to establish his involvement in the alleged offences. He emphasizes the current
progress of the trial, noting that only 10 out of the 24 cited witnesses have been
examined to date. Furthermore, the appellant maintains that he is a person of clean
character with no prior criminal antecedents, claiming that these factors
demonstrate his innocence.
9. Regarding his personal circumstances, the appellant submits that he is the sole
caretaker and breadwinner of his family, and his continued incarceration exposes
his dependents to severe financial hardship, mental trauma, and potential
starvation. He asserts that he is a permanent resident of Chanakyapuri colony,
Dewas, where he possesses property, thereby negating any risk of absconding. The
appellant further provides a solemn undertaking that he will not tamper with
evidence or influence witnesses and will strictly abide by all terms and conditions
imposed by this Court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE
10. The State, through the complainant, submitted an objection to the bail
application, asserting that the deceased was targeted by the applicant and co-
accused (Jagdish and Manorama) for the purpose of sale for 50,000/-. The State
₹
argues that the evidence in the case indicates the deceased died due to strangulation
and head injuries caused by a stone, evidencing a clear intent to murder.
11. The State further relies upon the 'Last Seen Theory', contending that the
deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, which establishes direct
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
6:10:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16975
3 CRA-4794-2026
involvement in the crime. The State asserts that the offence is of a serious nature

and there is a high risk of the accused influencing witnesses if released on bail,
thereby obstructing the cause of justice.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
12. The appellate jurisdiction in matters of bail is limited to assessing whether
the lower court exercised its discretion judicially and whether a prima facie case
exists against the applicant. This Court does not conduct a trial at the appellate
stage but examines the material available on record to determine the necessity of
continued detention.
13. A summary of the deposition of the deceased's mother reflects that her
daughter, went missing on 22 March 2023 after leaving for coaching. The witness
testified that she and her husband searched for the girl, including inquiries at the
coaching center, and eventually filed a missing report.
14. The witness further deposed that she learned of her daughter’s death on 25
March 2023. She identified the involvement of accused persons, specifically
Manorama and Jagdish, through CCTV footage evidence. According to the
witness, the footage depicted the accused Manorama and others taking the
deceased on a motorcycle and subsequently transporting her to various locations,
including a house in Dewas.
15. The witness categorically stated that the motive was to sell the deceased for
₹ 50,000/-. She further testified that when the accused were unable to sell her, they
took the deceased to the Mangliya railway tracks under the guise of dropping her
home, where they killed her by hitting her on the head with a stone. Additionally,
the witness confirmed the police recovery of the deceased's belongings, including a
black kurti, red salwar, and pink dupatta, which were seized and identified by her.
16. Upon considering the gravity of the charges, including Section 302 IPC, and
the specific incriminating details provided in the witness testimony regarding the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
6:10:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16975
4 CRA-4794-2026
abduction and the subsequent homicide, this Court finds that the prima facie case

against the appellant is significant.
17. The appellant’s contention regarding lack of direct evidence is contradicted
by the witness's account of the events and the supporting CCTV evidence. The risk
of influencing witnesses, combined with the heinous nature of the alleged crime,
weighs heavily against the grant of bail.
18. The Trial Court’s order rejecting the bail application is based on a sound
assessment of the material on record. The evidence presented in the depositions
provides sufficient grounds for detention, and the appellant has failed to
demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting a different view.
19. Consequently, the contention of the appellant is rejected, as the findings of
the Trial Court are supported by the evidence summarized herein.
20. In view of the above considerations, the present Criminal Appeal is
Dismissed. The order passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed.
21. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial with due expedition
without being influenced by this order.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
Arun/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
6:10:30 PM