Nitesh Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26778
1 CRA-6921-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
th
ON THE 7 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6921 of 2026
NITESH DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Atul Sharma - Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
1. The appellant has filed this third criminal appeal under Section
14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "SC/ST Act") being aggrieved by order dated
30.06.2026 passed by Special Judge, (Atrocities), Vidisha, whereby bail
application under Section 483 of BNSS of appellant has been dismissed.
2. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the victim has been
informed about filing of this appeal in compliance with mandate of Section
15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Appellant has been arrested on 24/03/2026 in connection with
Crime No.03/2026 registered at Police Station-A.J.K. (Ajaak), District
Vidisha for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 331(3), 305(A) of
B.N.S. and 3(1)(z), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH
CHAURASIA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
11:18:58 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26778
2 CRA-6921-2026
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. He is in custody since 24/03/2026.
There is no allegation that the appellant entered the complainant’s house or
committed any theft or vandalism. The allegation is only that, on 22.03.2026,
co-accused Laxman Meena took the complainant and his wife on his
motorcycle to the Police Station, but they were later kept away from their
house while it was being demolished. However, as per the complainant’s
statement (Annexure P/1), the appellant was not present at the spot when the
house was demolished. Therefore, the appellant had no role in the demolition
of the complainant’s house.
4 . 2 It is further urged that co-accused Varun Malik, Raj @ Harsh
Dhakad, Rakesh Raikwar, Ranjeet Raikwar and Laxman Singh Meena have
already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.06.2026,
06.07.2026 and 24.08.2026 in CRA No. 4276/2026, CRA No.4338/2026,
CRA No.5534/2026 and CRA.No.7152/2026 respectively. Furthermore,
the investigation in the matter is over and the charge-sheet has been filed;
therefore, further custodial interrogation of the appellant is no more
required. He has good case on merits. Trial is likely to take long time to
conclude and material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of
the appellant fleeing from justice. He undertakes to cooperate in trial. The
appellant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be
imposed by the Court. On these grounds, he prays that the impugned order
be set aside and appellant may be extended the benefit of bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH
CHAURASIA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
11:18:58 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26778
3 CRA-6921-2026
5. Per contra, learned counsel for State opposed the appeal and

prayed for dismissal of the appeal by contending that on the basis of the
allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is
made out.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and
the attending facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that trial
will take time to conclude, without commenting upon the merits of the case,
this appeal stands allowed by setting aside the impugned order and it is
directed that appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
8. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the appellant:-
(i). The appellant will comply with all the terms and
conditions of the bond executed by him;
(ii). The appellant will cooperate in the
investigation/trial, as the case may be;
(iii). The appellant will not indulge himself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police
Officer, as the case may be;
(iv). The appellant shall not commit an offence similar
to the offence of which he is accused;
(v). The appellant will not seek unnecessary
adjournments during the trial; and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH
CHAURASIA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
11:18:58 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26778
4 CRA-6921-2026
(vi). The appellant will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as
the case may be.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE
Ashish*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH
CHAURASIA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
11:18:58 AM