- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gyasi Patel v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL ON THE 28thOF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46412 of 2025
GYASI PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Nikhare - Advocate for the applicant. Shri Yogesh Dhande - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the second application filed on behalf of applicant under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail who is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 390/2014 registered by Police Station - Naugaon, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) for commission of offence under Sections 148, 149, 302 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
2. As per the prosecution story, allegation against the applicant is that he murdered Shri Pushpendra Gangele by gunfire, on the basis of which offence has been registered against the present applicant under the aforesaid sections.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Originally in the Charge Sheet the present applicant was not made accused under Section 319 of IPC, after nine years when the statement of Arun Kumar
1
Gangele and Munna @ Dinesh - two witness has been recorded in the trial court, thereafter application for section 319 IPC was filed and on the basis of that application, the court has taken cognizance and registered the case against the present applicant, that was registered after nine years of the incident. It is further submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation.
4. Learned counsel for the State have opposed the bail application and submitted that in his earlier bail application, the court was not inclined to grant bail, therefore, bail application was dismisses as withdrawn by Coordinate Bench vide order dated 26.7.2024 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.20839/2024. It is further submitted that thereafter the bail application of the co-accused Jang Bahadur Pateriya was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.10.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.No.20158/2024 with detailed order. The case of the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused and on same set of evidence, cognizance has been taken by the learned trial court. It is further submitted that in the court statement/deposition of Arun Kumar- P.W.-21 and Dinesh Kumar- P.W.-17 recorded before the trial court, name of the present applicant as well as other co-accused's presence has been clearly mentioned. It is further submitted that at this stage, appreciation of evidence will not be done. Present applicant is absconding.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
6. Having taken into consideration overall facts and circumstances of
2
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
the case and looking to the seriousness of offence, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. Consequently, this application under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail filed on behalf of applicant stands dismissed. nd
3
Alert