Facts
The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the withdrawal of his first application on February 2, 2026.
Source reference: p.1The prosecution alleged that on December 3, 2025, the applicant and co-accused Nar Singh made obscene gestures, touched the prosecutrix inappropriately, and threatened her.
Source reference: p.2A subsequent similar incident was alleged on December 7, 2025.
Source reference: p.3The applicant was arrested on December 8, 2025, for offences under Sections 74, 75(1), 78(1), 79, 296(b), 351(3), 332(c), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Source reference: p.1-2The applicant contended that the case arose from a land-way dispute, noted a four-day delay in the FIR, and highlighted his acquittal in two previous criminal cases.
Source reference: p.2The investigation is complete and the final report has been filed.
Source reference: p.3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the completion of the investigation and the principle of parity with the co-accused.
Source reference: p.2-3Law Applied
The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.
Source reference: p.1It further adhered to established bail jurisprudence concerning the socio-economic status of the accused, the likelihood of recidivism, and the potential for tampering with evidence.
Source reference: p.3The court also implicitly considered the principle of parity, noting the prior grant of bail to co-accused Nar Singh under M.Cr.C. No. 9347/2026.
Source reference: p.2Finally, it referenced Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the timely examination of witnesses during trial.
Source reference: p.4Reasoning
The court reasoned that because the investigation was complete and the final report filed, there was no immediate necessity for continued custodial interrogation.
Source reference: p.2-3The court evaluated the applicant's background as a 29-year-old agriculturist with family responsibilities and determined he was not a flight risk.
Source reference: p.3Regarding criminal antecedents, the court accepted that the applicant had been acquitted in previous matters, thus negating the State's argument on recidivism.
Source reference: p.2-3It noted that the veracity of the allegations and the impact of the four-day FIR delay were matters for trial.
Source reference: p.3Given that the co-accused was already on bail and there was no evidence that the applicant could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, the court found no compelling reason to prolong incarceration.
Source reference: p.3Holding
The court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount.
The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must attend all hearings, refrain from committing similar offences, and must not induce or threaten any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
Source reference: p.4The court further directed compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS to ensure the trial's progress.
Source reference: p.4The order remains effective until the end of the trial, subject to the trial court's power to cancel bail in case of a breach of conditions.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
Shankar SinghvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in