Sumit Alias Kamal Kishor Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19820
1 MCRC-14121-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
th
ON THE 7 OF JULY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14121 of 2026
SUMIT ALIAS KAMAL KISHOR KEWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Rajnish Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This is first application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the
applicant for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 28.05.2025 by
Police Station Cantt, District Guna in connection with Crime No.565/2025,
registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 115(2), 109,
351 (3), 3 (5), 103 (1) of BNS.
2. As per the prosecution story, the other co-accused assaulted the
complainant party by pelting stones, as a result of which the deceased,
Rambabu Sen, sustained a head injury and succumbed to it. The only
allegation against the present applicant is that he also pelted a stone at the
deceased, Rambabu, which fell on his chest, causing him to sustain multiple
injuries on various parts of his body.Accordingly, the aforesaid offence was
registered against the present applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/9/2026
3:41:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19820
2 MCRC-14121-2026
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further

submitted that as per the MLC, the deceased, Rambabu, died due to a head
injury, which is specifically attributed to co-accused Bunti Kushwaha. It is
also submitted that co-accused Rajpal @ Chotu Yadav has already been
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.
59728 of 2025. Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this
Court to the medical documents filed along with the application, highlighting
that the present applicant, along with another co-accused, Vijay, is suffering
from HIV. It is contended that if their custody is prolonged, the risk of other
inmates or patients contracting the infection cannot be ruled out. In such
circumstances, the learned counsel prays for the grant of bail.
3. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rajinder Rajan Vs. Union of India
and Anr, passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 3326 of 2026 , wherein, Hon'ble Supreme
Court, relied the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharastra and Anr,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana and Anr. passed in SLP (Crl.) 13320 of 2024, wherein, the Court
has held that failure to furnish the 'grounds of arrest' to an accused in writing
amounts to violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21
and 22 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that where the arrested
person has not been informed of the grounds of arrest, the inevitable
consequence would be that the arrest is illegal and such person is entitled to
be released from custody.
4. In particular, learned counsel relied upon the following conclusions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/9/2026
3:41:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19820
3 MCRC-14121-2026
recorded in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra):-

"66. In conclusion, it is held that:
66.1. 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);
66.2. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to
the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
66.3. 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.
66.4. 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."
5. Per contra, Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail
application, asserting that there is sufficient material available in the case
diary to implicate the present applicant. Counsel drew the Court's attention to
FIR wherein, it has been mentioned that present applicant also pelted stone
to deceased Rambabu, prima facie active involvement of present applicant is
seen. This chain of events demonstrates their active involvement in the
murder. Furthermore, the mere non-mentioning of the grounds of arrest does
not constitute a valid reason for bail when there is substantial evidence to
corroborate the prosecution's case. Looking to the gravity of the offense and
the supporting material on record, the applicants should not be released at
this stage. In support of his contention, Counsel for the State relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs.
Sri Darshan etc. (Cr.A. No. 3538-3543 of 2025), wherein it was held that a
delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a valid
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/9/2026
3:41:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19820
4 MCRC-14121-2026
ground for the grant of bail.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sri Darshan (Supra), has
held as under:-
"...20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself,
constitute a valid ground for grant of bail.
20.1.1. The learned counsel for the respondents – accused
contended that the arrest was illegal as the grounds of arrest were
not furnished immediately in writing, thereby violating Article 22
(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C (now Section 47 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). This submission,
however, is devoid of merit.
20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that “no person
who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being
informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor
shall he be denied the right to consult, and to 37 be defended by, a
legal practitioner of his choice”. Similarly, Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C.
requires that “every police officer or other person arresting any
person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full
particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds
for such arrest.
20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates
that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest
– but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon
written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have
clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is
sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown.
20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar (Supra), it was reiterated that Article
22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest
grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly,
in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh , it was
observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out
the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post-
Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised
grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances.
20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent
judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when
examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written
grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it
results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/9/2026
3:41:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19820
5 MCRC-14121-2026
defend.
20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily on the alleged
procedural lapse as a determinative factor while overlooking the
gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the existence of
a prima facie case. It noted, inter alia, that there was no mention in
the remand orders about service of memo of grounds of arrest
(para 45); the arrest memos were allegedly template-based and not
personalised (para 50); and eyewitnesses had not stated that they
were present at the time of arrest or had signed the memos (para
48). Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), it concluded (paras
43, 49 – 50) that from 03.10.2023 onwards, failure to serve
detailed, written, and individualised grounds of arrest immediately
after arrest was a violation entitling the accused to bail.
20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records
clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the reasons for
their arrest. They were legally 24 (2024) 7 SCC 576 39
represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest,
evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the
accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish
that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse.
In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at
best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail.
As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative
factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section
302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on
Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those
decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory
contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the
settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of
arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or
entitle the accused to bail."

20.2. Appreciation of evidence at the bail stage is impermissible.
20.2.1. In State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra (AIR 2008 SC
2318), this Court observed:
“11. It is common knowledge that generally direct evidence may
not be available to prove conspiracy, inasmuch as the act of
conspiracy takes place secretly. Only the conspirators would be
knowing about the conspiracy. However, the Court, while
evaluating the material, may rely upon other material which
suggests conspiracy. Such material will be on record during the
course of trial. However, at this stage, prima facie, the Court needs
to take into consideration the overall material while considering

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/9/2026
3:41:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19820
6 MCRC-14121-2026
the prayer for bail.
12. Though this Court may not ordinarily interfere with the orders
of the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused, it is
open for this Court to set aside the order of the High Court, where
it is apparent that the High Court has not exercised its discretion
judiciously and in accordance with the basic principles governing
the grant of bail. It is by now well settled that at the time of
considering an application for bail, the Court must take into
account certain factors such as the existence of a prima facie case
against the accused, the gravity of the allegations, position and
status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering with
the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal
antecedents of the accused. It is also well settled that the Court
must not go into deep into merits of the matter while considering
an application for bail. All that needs to be established from the
record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.”

8. In Imran v. Mohammed Bhava (Criminal Appeal Nos. 658 and 659
of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl) Nos. 27 and 1242 of 2022) dated 22.04.2022), a three-
Judge Bench held as follows:
“32. This court in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., has
reiterated that it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration
certain factors and they basically are, (i) the nature of accusation
and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the
complainant, and (iii) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in
support of the charge.” 33. Applying the ratio of the decisions of
this court referred to above to the facts of the case in hand, we
have no hesitation in observing that the High Court erred in not
considering the basic principles for grant of bail, well established
by various judicial pronouncements. The High Court lost sight of
the fact that there exists sufficient material against the accused
Respondents herein, so as to establish a prima facie case against
them.”
9. Similarly, in Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat (Criminal
Appeal No. 70 of 2022 dated 18.01.2022 ), this Court reiterated that the fact
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/9/2026
3:41:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19820
7 MCRC-14121-2026
that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence is not a valid

ground to release the accused on bail, especially where a complete chain of
circumstances has been prima facie established during investigation. In such
circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under-:
“6. …. the High Court has not at all adverted to the material
collected during the course of the investigation. The High Court
has not at all considered the material/evidence collected during the
course of the investigation even prima facie and has directed to
release respondent no.2 in such a serious offence of hatching
conspiracy to kill his wife, by simply observing that as it is a case
of circumstantial evidence, which is a weak piece of evidence, it is
not legal and proper to deny bail to respondent no.2. Merely
because the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence
cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail, if during the
course of the investigation the evidence/material has been
collected and prima facie the complete chain of events is
established. As observed hereinabove, while releasing respondent
no.2 on bail, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has not at
all adverted to and/or considered any of the material/evidence
collected during the course of the investigation, which is a part of
the charge-sheet.

7. One another reason given by the High Court to release
respondent no.2 on bail is that the accused has deep root in the
society and no apprehension as to flee away or escape trial or
tampering with the evidence/witnesses is expressed. In a case of
committing the offence under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and
in a case of hatching conspiracy to kill his wife and looking to the
seriousness of the offence, the aforesaid can hardly be a ground to
release the accused on bail.”
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon a
meticulous perusal of the case diary alongside the cited precedents, this
Court finds that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in
nature. The prosecution story explicitly indicates that the applicant was
actively involved in the incident and pelted a stone at the deceased, Rambabu
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/9/2026
3:41:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19820
8 MCRC-14121-2026
Sen, which fell on his chest, contributing to the multiple injuries sustained by

him.
11. Although the learned counsel for the applicant has forcefully
argued regarding the non-furnishing of the written grounds of arrest by
placing reliance on Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the subsequent judgment of Sri Darshan (supra) has distinctly clarified that a
procedural delay or the mere absence of written individualised grounds does
not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless demonstrable prejudice is
shown. In the present case, the applicant was well aware of the reasons for
his arrest, was legally represented, and has failed to show any such prejudice.
Therefore, a procedural lapse, if any, cannot be treated as a determinative
factor to overshadow the gravity of the offence.
12. Furthermore, it is a settled principle of law, as reiterated in
Mahimananda Mishra (supra) and Imran (supra), that a detailed appreciation
of evidence or a deep dive into the merits of the case is impermissible at the
stage of considering bail. The court must only satisfy itself regarding the
existence of a prima facie case, the nature of the accusation, and the gravity
of the offence. The material available in the case diary pointing towards the
applicant's involvement, coupled with the severity of the offence under
Section 103(1) of the BNS, disentitles the applicant to the benefit of bail at
this stage.
13. Consequently, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,
the gravity of the offence, and the gravity of the supporting material on
record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/9/2026
3:41:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19820
9 MCRC-14121-2026
14. Accordingly, the first bail application filed by the applicant under

Section 483 of the BNSS stands dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 7/9/2026
3:41:11 PM