Awdhesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68540
1 MCRC-31337-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31337 of 2026
AWDHESH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Paritosh Trivedi - counsel for the applicant
Shri Amit Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent -
State
ORDER
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section
482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
anticipatory bail relating to FIR/Crime No. 146/2010 registered at Police
Station- Jawa District Rewa (M.P.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 353, 186, 342, 506-II of IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 22.09.2010 at about 1:30 a.m.,
the present applicant, along with two co-accused persons, allegedly came
to the Police Station and requested the police personnel on duty to
permit them to meet a person who was then in police custody. The police
personnel informed them that the Police Station was under the AD area
and directed them to come on the following morning. It is further alleged
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:52:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68540
2 MCRC-31337-2026
that thereafter co-accused Tersu instructed another co-accused, namely

Pramod, to lock the main gate of the Police Station. Pursuant thereto,
Pramod allegedly brought a lock, locked the main gate and also extended
threats to the police personnel. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations,
the present crime was registered against the applicant and the other co-
accused persons.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even if the
prosecution story is taken at its face value, no overt act whatsoever has
been attributed to the present applicant. The specific allegations
regarding locking of the main gate of the Police Station and extending
threats to the police personnel are directed against the co-accused
persons, particularly Tersu and Pramod. There is no specific allegation
that the present applicant either participated in locking the gate,
threatened any police personnel, or obstructed the functioning of the
Police Station. The applicant is a respectable person and a social worker
serving as the Divisional Organization Secretary of Vishva Hindu
Parishad (VHP), Mahakoshal Prant. Since the date of the alleged
incident, the applicant has never concealed himself from the public
authorities and has continuously remained available at his permanent
place of residence. He has openly participated in various public, social
and organizational activities and has never absconded or attempted to
evade the process of law. His conduct throughout demonstrates that there
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:52:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68540
3 MCRC-31337-2026
is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice. The alleged incident is of

22.09.2010 and a period of approximately sixteen years has elapsed
since the date of the alleged occurrence. The investigation has already
been completed long ago and the prosecution evidence, both oral and
documentary, is stated to have already been collected. The trial against
the co-accused persons has also proceeded to its conclusion. Initially, the
co-accused persons were convicted by the learned Trial Court vide
judgment dated 20.10.2023. However, in appeal, they were acquitted by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 01.10.2024.
In view of the acquittal of the co-accused persons in respect of the same
incident, coupled with the absence of any specific overt act attributed to
the present applicant, his arrest after an inordinate lapse of
approximately sixteen years would serve no useful purpose. The
custodial interrogation of the applicant is wholly unnecessary,
particularly when the investigation has already been completed and the
material evidence has already been collected by the investigating
agency. The allegations against the applicant are based upon evidence
which is already available with the prosecution. No recovery is required
to be effected from the applicant, nor is there any material to suggest that
his custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair and effective
investigation. His arrest at this belated stage would not advance the
cause of investigation and would serve no meaningful purpose.
4. Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:52:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68540
4 MCRC-31337-2026
prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations levelled against

the applicant are serious in nature and arise out of an incident wherein
the applicant, along with the co-accused persons, allegedly went to the
Police Station at about 1:30 a.m. and sought permission to meet a person
who was in police custody. It is submitted that when the police personnel
refused permission and directed them to come on the following morning,
the co-accused persons allegedly proceeded to lock the main gate of the
Police Station and threatened the police personnel. The presence of the
applicant at the Police Station along with the co-accused persons is
specifically disclosed in the prosecution case and his role has to be
considered in the context of the entire occurrence and the conduct of the
persons acting together. Learned counsel for the State further submits
that the contention of the applicant that no specific overt act has been
attributed to him is a matter which requires appreciation of the evidence
collected during investigation and cannot, at this stage, be considered in
isolation from the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the
witnesses. Merely because the act of physically locking the gate has been
attributed to a co-accused, the applicant cannot claim complete
exoneration, particularly when his presence and participation in the
incident are alleged. It is further submitted that the alleged incident being
old does not, by itself, constitute a ground for granting bail where the
applicant has not faced the process of law for the alleged offence and the
matter is required to be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence available
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:52:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68540
5 MCRC-31337-2026
on record. The mere passage of time cannot wipe out the alleged

criminal liability or render the prosecution case inconsequential. Learned
counsel for the State submits that the acquittal of the co-accused persons
in appeal cannot automatically enure to the benefit of the present
applicant. The order of acquittal has to be examined in the light of the
evidence and the specific role attributed to each accused. The applicant
was not a party to the said appellate adjudication and the evidentiary
position concerning his individual role may require independent
consideration. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity solely on the
basis of the acquittal of the co-accused persons.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
counsel appearing for the State and having perused the material available
on record, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is not
entitled to the benefit of bail at this stage.
6. The prosecution case specifically places the applicant at the
spot along with the other accused persons during the occurrence. The
fact that the physical act of locking the main gate has been specifically
attributed to co-accused Tersu and Pramod does not, by itself, establish
that the applicant had no role whatsoever in the incident. The allegations
have to be considered in their entirety, particularly having regard to the
alleged presence of the applicant at the Police Station at the relevant time
and the circumstances in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken
place. As regards the acquittal of the co-accused persons by the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:52:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68540
6 MCRC-31337-2026
Additional Sessions Judge, this Court is of the view that the said

acquittal cannot automatically result in the applicant being granted bail.
Suffice it to observe that, on consideration of the allegations and the
material presently available on record, this Court does not find it
appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any final opinion on the
merits of the case, the present bail application is rejected.
(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE
S /-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:52:34