Ramveer Singh Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
1 MCRC-9114-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 16 OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9114 of 2026
RAMVEER SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Abhay Jain - Advocate for respondent [INT].
ORDER
This is third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. His earlier bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the court
statement of the material witnesses vide order dated 06.01.2026 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.58110 of 2025 by this Court.
2. The applicant has been arrested on 28.10.2025 in connection with
Crime No. 473/2019 registered at Police Station Dharnawada, District Guna
(M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 306, 201, 203, 204, 120(b),
193, 218, 342 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on the night of 20.06.2015 at about
22:40 hours, Purushottam Saini, an employee of Royal Sales Petrol Pump,
Ruthiyai, informed the Ruthiyai Police Outpost that an unidentified person
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
2 MCRC-9114-2026
had sustained burn injuries. The police immediately reached the spot and

conducted preliminary investigation and seizure proceedings. During
treatment at the District Hospital, Guna, the injured person died on
21.06.2015, upon which Merg No. 96/15 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was
registered and a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Assistant Sub-
Inspector F. Kerketta. The deceased was later identified as Makhan, son of
Gopal Kushwah, aged about 30 years, resident of Narahat, District Lalitpur
(Uttar Pradesh), and post-mortem formalities were completed. Subsequently,
on 26.06.2015, Merg No. 19/2015 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered
at Police Station Dharnavda and the inquiry was assigned to Head Constable
No. 4 Harimohan Singh Parihar. The investigation concluded that the
deceased, distressed due to the death of his wife, had committed suicide by
pouring diesel upon himself. Accordingly, the then Station House Officer
Sub-Inspector Ramveer Singh, through report No. 112/2015 dated
04.11.2015, forwarded the Merg diary for closure approval to the SDM
Raghogarh via the SDOP Raghogarh. The SDM, by order dated 27.07.2017,
approved the closure and directed destruction of the seized articles.
However, the deceased’s father Gopal was pursuing the matter since 2015
and ultimately filed a petition before the High Court Bench at Gwalior i.e.
MCRC No. 37896/2019. Upon examination of the complaint, suspicion
regarding the death of Makhan was raised against driver Hardas and his wife
Nishabai, whereas the Merg had been closed on the premise that the
deceased’s wife had died. It was also found that the statements of Hardas,
who was with the deceased on the truck and had informed about the burning
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
3 MCRC-9114-2026
incident, had not been recorded, nor any reference was made regarding the

truck. Accordingly, correspondence was initiated with the Superintendent of
Police, Guna, resulting in the SDM Raghogarh ordering re-opening of the
Merg inquiry on 25.09.2019. During reinvestigation it was revealed that the
deceased’s wife was in fact alive and had remarried Kalyan, son of Udal
Kushwah, resident of Ikona, District Lalitpur (U.P.), and was living with the
deceased’s seven-year-old son. Relevant Aadhaar card copies and
certification from the village head of Ikona were seized. During further
investigation conducted by SHO Neeraj Birtare, statements of material
witness Hardas Kushwah were recorded and documents were seized. It was
revealed that on 20.06.2015, Hardas had talked twice with the deceased
Makhan over the phone, during which Makhan stated that Ruthiyai police
had seized his vehicle, detained him, assaulted him, and that he was so
distressed that he might end his life. This indicated that Makhan had
committed suicide due to harassment. Consequently, Crime No. 473/2019
was registered against unknown persons. Statements of the deceased’s father
Gopal Kushwah and brother Raman Kushwah were recorded on 09.12.2019,
wherein they attributed the incident to police harassment and sought proper
investigation. The case diary was thereafter forwarded to the SDOP Court
Raghogarh for further action. Investigation revealed that on 20.06.2015, the
deceased Makhan was the driver of container MH-04-FU-8924 belonging to
Parasmani Company, which had departed from Banmore (Gwalior) for
Dewas on 19.06.2015, whereas driver Hardas Kushwah was operating
another container MH-04-FU-4915 and was in Karnataka on that date. Upon
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
4 MCRC-9114-2026
seeking legal opinion, the ADPO Satish Verma opined on 23.12.2019 that

the then SHO Ramveer Singh, Head Constable Harimohan Singh, and
Constable Vineet Bhardwaj had deliberately suppressed and manipulated
facts and fabricated false documents. Accordingly, offences under Sections
166, 167, 197, 306 and 201 IPC were recommended for investigation against
the said police personnel. Acting on instructions of the Superintendent of
Police, the said sections were added on 24.12.2019 and Ramveer Singh,
Head Constable Harimohan Singh (since deceased), and Constable Vineet
Bhardwaj were named as accused. Later, the investigation was transferred to
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Guna, who recorded
statements of witnesses, prepared the site map, seized the burnt mobile phone
of the deceased and sent it for cyber forensic examination to Gandhinagar,
Gujarat. Medical records including the bed-head ticket and expert opinion
from the Medico-Legal Institute, Bhopal confirmed that death was due to
90% burn injuries. However, the investigation at that stage did not
conclusively establish harassment by any specific person and suggested that
the deceased had committed suicide due to distress caused by his wife’s
remarriage in 2014; therefore, due to lack of prosecutable evidence, closure
permission was sought and submitted before the Court at Raghogarh in May
2022. Subsequently, on directions from higher police authorities, the matter
was again re-investigated in 2023. Statements of the deceased’s father,
brother, company representatives, driver Hardas Kushwah, and employee Lal
Singh Parihar, who had received the container from Ruthiyai police, were
recorded. Hardas stated that Makhan had called him twice informing that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
5 MCRC-9114-2026
police had illegally seized container MH-04-FU-8924, detained him in the

police outpost, abused and severely assaulted him, and humiliated him,
saying he would rather die. Lal Singh Parihar also stated that when he met
SHO Ramveer Singh at the police outpost, the SHO admitted having detained
the driver and later releasing him, after which Makhan allegedly returned
intoxicated and set himself on fire. No documentary record of this was found
in the case diary. Statements of these witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. were later confirmed before the Court under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on
24.10.2025. From the cumulative investigation it emerged that the deceased
Makhan Kushwah had been illegally detained in the police outpost after his
container was seized and was subjected to harassment, about which he had
informed Hardas over phone. The failure of the then SHO to initiate action
under Sections 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver, if
he had indeed been driving under intoxication, further rendered the police
version doubtful. Thus, although direct technical evidence was unavailable,
the circumstantial evidence prima facie indicated that the then SHO Ramveer
Singh, in conspiracy with Head Constable Harimohan Singh (deceased),
deliberately destroyed evidence and fabricated false records. Accordingly,
offences under Sections 306, 201, 203, 204, 120-B, 193, 218 and 342 IPC
were prima facie made out against accused Ramveer Singh Kushwah (then
SHO, presently dismissed from service). Consequently, the present FIR has
been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
6 MCRC-9114-2026
that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the

prosecution story and has been unnecessarily implicated on the basis of
conjectures and assumptions. Learned counsel further submits that the entire
case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial allegations and there is no
direct or cogent evidence to establish that the applicant had either abetted the
alleged suicide of the deceased or had committed any act which could legally
attract the offences alleged against him. It is further submitted that the
present bail application has been preferred on the specific ground that the
action of the police authorities in arresting the applicant is wholly illegal and
contrary to the constitutional safeguards guaranteed to a person under arrest.
Learned counsel submits that at the time of arrest the applicant was not
informed of the grounds of arrest, which is a mandatory requirement of law.
Such action of the police authorities amounts to a clear violation of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India. It is contended that the constitutional mandate requires
that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by law and that every person who is arrested must
be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of such arrest. Learned
counsel further submits that the arrest of the applicant has also been made in
complete disregard of the statutory mandate contained in Section 47 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which casts a duty upon the
arresting officer to communicate to the person arrested the full particulars of
the offence for which he is arrested and the grounds of such arrest. It is
argued that in the present case no such communication was made to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
7 MCRC-9114-2026
applicant at the time of his arrest, thereby rendering the arrest itself arbitrary,

illegal and in violation of the established procedure of law. It is therefore
submitted that the continued custody of the applicant is unjustified and
violative of his fundamental rights. On these grounds, learned counsel for the
applicant prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. Relying on Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another (2025
INSC 162), it is argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down a legal
proposition regarding mandatory nature of conveying grounds of arrest to the
arrestee, which are as under:
21. Therefore, we conclude:

a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of
arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);

b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to
the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of
the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and
communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language
which he understands. The mode and method of communication
must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is
achieved;

c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the
Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1);

d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the
fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article.
Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal
liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore,
non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the
arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal
court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not
vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same
time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of
constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);

e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial
Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain
whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
8 MCRC-9114-2026
safeguards has been made; and

f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of
the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be
a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of
bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the
court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the
Constitution is established.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant’s earlier bail
application had been dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to renew the
prayer only after the recording of statements of the material prosecution
witnesses before the trial court. It was further contended that the grounds
now urged in the present application were very much available to the
applicant at the time of filing the earlier bail application. Moreover, the
applicant is stated to have criminal antecedents involving six criminal cases.
Therefore, in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances, the
present bail application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that in the
present case, the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the applicant
orally at the time of arrest. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of
Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
has authoritatively clarified the requirement regarding communication of
grounds of arrest. The Court held as follows:
56. In conclusion, it is held that:

i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the
grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes
including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
9 MCRC-9114-2026

ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the
arrestee in the language he/she understands;

iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to
communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after
arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in
writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours
prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before
the magistrate.

iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and
subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will
be at liberty to be set free.

57. After having come to the above conclusion, it is pertinent to
note that the provision of law under Section 50 of CrPC 1973
(Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not provide for a specific mode
of or time frame for communication of the grounds of arrest to the
person arrested. This Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra), held
that the grounds of arrest be conveyed to the arrestee in writing in
all offences at the earliest, which means it need not be given at the
time of arrest but within a reasonable time thereafter, for offences
under all the statutes, which period would be as has been laid
down above in this order.

58. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding
requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of
arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would
ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an
arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India
in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid
uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of
fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure
as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth.

8. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka v. Sri Darshan reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 has held
that while compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory, the
consistent judicial approach has been to apply a “prejudice-oriented test”
while examining alleged procedural lapses. The Hon’ble Court further held
that the mere absence of written grounds of arrest does not ipso facto render
the arrest illegal unless such omission results in demonstrable prejudice,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
10 MCRC-9114-2026
particularly by denying the accused a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the
present case, the applicant was arrested on 28.10.2025, whereas the judgment
in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) was delivered on 06.11.2025. Therefore, the
law laid down in the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of
the present case, as the arrest preceded the pronouncement of the said
decision.
10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant has raised a specific
contention that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him at the
time of arrest, thereby violating the constitutional safeguards provided under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and
another (supra) which has been further eleborated in the mattter of Mihir
Rajesh Shah (supra) has held that the requirement of informing a person
arrested of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement under Article
22(1) and that non-compliance with the said requirement would amount to
violation of the fundamental rights of the accused. It has further been held
that when such violation is established, it would constitute a valid ground for
grant of bail.
12. The record of the case does not clearly demonstrate that the
grounds of arrest were communicated to the applicant in the manner
contemplated by the constitutional and statutory safeguards. Although it has
been contended on behalf of the complainant that the grounds of arrest were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
11 MCRC-9114-2026
communicated orally, the material presently available does not conclusively

establish due compliance with the safeguards envisaged under Article 22(1)
of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS.
13. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case coupled with the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future
and prolonged pre- trial detention being an anathema to the concept of
liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
14. Accordingly, without commenting on merits of the case, this bail
application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand
Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court for his appearance before it on the dates given by the
concerned Court.
15. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicant:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
may be;
3. The applicant 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;
4. The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9392
12 MCRC-9114-2026
of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically,

without further reference to the Bench;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
16. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance.
17. Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 3/17/2026
6:45:27 PM