The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the foundational principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, granting relief to an accused despite four prior criminal antecedents. The order underscores that absence of corroborative forensic evidence and parity with co-accused granted bail outweigh mere allegations and past record, reinforcing constitutional safeguards under Article 21.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Anwar @ Annu Khan, is accused in FIR No. 343 of 2025 registered at Police Station Shujalpur City, District Shajapur, for offences under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 296, 351(3), 109, 238(A), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2026. The alleged incident occurred on or about 18.01.2026, wherein the applicant is accused of causing injury to one Shakir with a sword. The charge sheet names the applicant as the primary assailant who struck the victim on the head.
Key Facts
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 19.01.2026.
- The victim’s injury certificate and medical records do not indicate any head injury, contradicting the allegation of a sword blow to the head.
- No sword, the alleged weapon, was recovered from the scene or from the applicant.
- Two other accused persons, Babloo Khan and Afzar Khan, were also named in the FIR for causing injuries with iron rods. Their names were retained in the charge sheet.
- Two other accused, Ossaf and Idrish, were initially named in the FIR but were dropped from the charge sheet without explanation.
- The applicant has four prior criminal antecedents, as noted by the objector.
- The first bail application was filed and subsequently withdrawn on 02.04.2026.
Procedural History
- 18.01.2026: Alleged incident occurred.
- 19.01.2026: Applicant arrested and taken into custody.
- 02.04.2026: First bail application (M.Cr.C. No. 10792/2026) dismissed as withdrawn.
- 07.04.2026: Co-accused Babloo Khan granted bail by the trial court.
- 10.04.2026: Co-accused Afzar Khan granted bail by the trial court.
- 11.05.2026: Second bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 before the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel argued that:
- The medical evidence does not support the allegation of a head injury caused by a sword.
- No weapon was recovered, undermining the prosecution’s case.
- Two co-accused, who allegedly used iron rods - weapons of comparable or greater severity - have already been granted bail.
- The trial is likely to be protracted, and the applicant has already spent over three and a half months in custody.
- The applicant undertakes to comply with all bail conditions.
For the Respondent/Objector
The objector and the State opposed bail on grounds that:
- The applicant is alleged to have inflicted a serious injury with a deadly weapon.
- He has four prior criminal antecedents, indicating a pattern of criminal conduct.
- The nature of the offence is grave and warrants continued detention.
- No substantial change in circumstances occurred after the first bail application was withdrawn.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail pending trial, with conditions to be imposed by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied solely on the basis of prior criminal antecedents and uncorroborated allegations, when co-accused facing similar or more serious allegations have been granted bail, and when forensic evidence fails to substantiate the core accusation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, as affirmed in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI. He emphasized that the absence of recovery of the alleged weapon and the lack of head injury in medical records materially weaken the prosecution’s case. He invoked the doctrine of parity, citing K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, arguing that differential treatment of co-accused without rational basis violates Article 14. He further submitted that prolonged pre-trial detention without conclusive evidence violates Article 21.
For the Respondent/State
The State and objector contended that the gravity of the offence under the new BNS, 2026, particularly the use of a deadly weapon, justifies denial of bail. They relied on State of M.P. v. Madan Lal to argue that prior antecedents are a valid ground for refusing bail, especially in cases involving violence. They asserted that the withdrawal of the first application precluded reconsideration absent new facts, and that parity cannot override the specific role attributed to the applicant.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the case diary, FIR, injury certificate, and panchnama of seized weapons. It noted that while the FIR alleged a blow with a sword to the head, the medical report contained no evidence of such an injury. Crucially, no sword was recovered from the applicant or the scene. The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rested on assertion, not corroboration.
"I am of the view that there is sufficient material which require to be considered about the role of the present applicant in appropriate manner so also considering the fact that there are two other accused persons namely Babloo Khan and Afzar Khan, who have caused injury to the injured persons by giving a blow with iron rod have already been granted bail by the trial Court..."
The Court held that the principle of parity cannot be ignored. Where co-accused facing comparable allegations are granted bail, denial to another accused without a rational, case-specific distinction violates the equality principle under Article 14. The Court further emphasized that prior antecedents alone cannot override the presumption of innocence or the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21, particularly where the evidence is weak.
The Court declined to prejudge the merits of the case but found that the balance of convenience, the length of detention, and the absence of forensic support tipped the scales in favor of bail. It rejected the argument that withdrawal of the first application barred reconsideration, noting that the second application raised new factual grounds - namely, the grant of bail to co-accused and the absence of medical corroboration.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions: the applicant shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount, to be approved by the trial court. He must mark his presence at the concerned police station on the 1st and 3rd Friday of every month until trial concludes. He shall not engage in any criminal activity; breach will lead to cancellation of bail. The order remains effective till the end of trial, subject to compliance with Section 480(3) of BNSS, 2023.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parity in Bail Cannot Be Ignored
- Practitioners must systematically compare bail orders granted to co-accused in the same case.
- Denial of bail to one accused while granting it to others with similar or greater involvement requires a documented, rational distinction.
- Failure to do so invites challenge under Article 14.
Forensic Gaps Can Tip the Scale
- In cases involving weapons or injuries, absence of recovery or medical corroboration significantly weakens the prosecution’s case.
- Courts are increasingly willing to grant bail where allegations are unsupported by physical evidence, even in serious offences.
- Defence counsel should prioritize obtaining and highlighting medical reports and seizure records in bail applications.
Prior Antecedents Are Not Dispositive
- Four prior convictions do not automatically disqualify an accused from bail.
- Courts now weigh antecedents against the strength of the current case and the duration of detention.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to show why detention is necessary despite weak evidence and prolonged custody.
