Introduction
In cases involving multiple accused persons and allegations of assault causing grievous injury, courts are frequently called upon to examine whether every named accused has been assigned a specific and identifiable role in the commission of the alleged offence. The mere presence of a person’s name in an FIR — particularly in the context of a family dispute — does not automatically justify pre-arrest detention, especially where the prosecution’s own allegations fail to attribute any distinct act to that individual. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur examined this principle carefully in MCRC No. 57269 of 2025, arising from the same FIR that was subsequently the subject of another anticipatory bail order in MCRC 2643/2026.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Trilok Prasad Saket, filed his first application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 914/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh.
The offences alleged were under the following provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:
| Section | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 103(1) | Murder |
| Section 115(2) | Voluntarily causing grievous hurt |
| Section 118 | Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons |
| Section 296 | Obscene acts |
| Section 333 | House trespass to commit offence |
| Section 351 | Criminal intimidation |
| Section 109 | Attempt to commit offences |
Key Facts
The prosecution’s case as recorded in the order revealed the following factual matrix:
- Co-accused Bhagwat Prasad Saket, along with his sons and the applicant, allegedly entered the house of the victim and began destroying the fencing
- When the victim — Basanti Saket — objected, four accused persons started abusing her
- Bhagwat Prasad Saket then allegedly assaulted the victim with an axe, causing injuries to her head and hand
- When the victim’s daughter-in-law and her husband Jag Jahir came to rescue her, all four accused persons including the applicant allegedly assaulted them as well
- Ramswaroop was specifically alleged to have assaulted the rescuers with an iron rod
- The applicant and Ishwardeen were stated to be carrying lathis
- Critically — the Court noted that no specific role had been assigned to the applicant in the prosecution’s allegations
- No medical report of Jag Jahir — one of the alleged victims of the second assault — was placed on record
- The applicant is a Government servant
- Both parties are family members and the FIR arose out of a family property dispute
Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant
Senior Advocate Shri Mrigendra Singh Baghel, appearing with Ms. Akanksha Singh Chauhan, advanced the following key arguments:
1. False Implication in a Family Dispute The applicant had been falsely implicated due to an ongoing family dispute. The FIR was not a reflection of genuine criminal conduct but rather an escalation of a civil dispute between family members over property.
2. No Specific Allegation of Assault Nowhere in the prosecution’s case was it stated that the applicant had personally assaulted the victim or her family members. He was merely present and alleged to be carrying a lathi — without any specific act of assault attributed to him.
3. Government Servant The applicant’s status as a Government servant was placed before the Court as a relevant consideration — indicating his rootedness in society and the serious professional consequences that would flow from his arrest.
State’s Opposition
The learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the application, highlighting that the victim Basanti Saket had suffered grievous injuries caused by a hard and sharp object. It was urged that given the seriousness of the injuries, no case for anticipatory bail was made out.
The Court’s Decision
Hon’ble Justice Devnarayan Mishra, after hearing both sides and perusing the case diary, made a crucial observation: while the prosecution alleged that the applicant was present and carrying a lathi, no specific role had been assigned to him in the assault. Additionally, the medical report of Jag Jahir — one of the alleged assault victims — had not been placed on record.
Taking the overall facts and circumstances into consideration, the Court deemed it fit to grant anticipatory bail and accordingly allowed the application — without commenting on the merits of the case.
Directions issued by the Court:
- In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer
- The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating agency and appear before the Investigating Officer on dates and times directed
- The applicant shall abide by all conditions enumerated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023
Legal Significance of This Order
This order carries several important lessons for practitioners handling anticipatory bail applications in assault and family dispute cases:
① No Specific Role — A Decisive Factor Even in Grievous Hurt Cases The State’s strongest argument was the grievous nature of the victim’s injuries. Yet the Court granted anticipatory bail because the prosecution’s own case failed to attribute any specific act of assault to the applicant. This reflects the established principle that the gravity of injury caused by co-accused cannot automatically be visited upon every named accused without a specific allegation of individual participation.
② Possession of a Weapon Without Its Use The prosecution alleged that the applicant was carrying a lathi. However, no assault using that lathi was specifically attributed to him. Courts have consistently held that mere possession of a weapon at the scene, without its actual use in the alleged offence, is a materially weaker allegation than active participation in assault.
③ Absence of Medical Evidence as a Relevant Gap The Court specifically noted that no medical report of Jag Jahir had been placed on record. The absence of corroborating medical evidence for one of the alleged victims weakened the prosecution’s overall case and was a factor the Court considered at the bail stage.
④ Family Dispute Context The fact that both parties were family members and the FIR arose from a property dispute was noted as a relevant background circumstance. Courts recognize that family disputes — particularly over property — frequently result in FIRs with exaggerated or omnibus allegations against multiple family members.
⑤ Government Service as a Relevant Consideration The applicant’s status as a Government servant was a factor placed before the Court. A Government servant has identifiable roots in society, regular accountability to an employer, and faces significant professional consequences from arrest — all of which are relevant to the flight risk and accountability considerations that underpin bail jurisprudence.
⑥ Connected FIR — Consistent Judicial Approach This case arises from the same FIR (Crime No. 914/2025) in which co-accused Angad Prasad Saket was subsequently granted anticipatory bail by the same High Court in MCRC 2643/2026. The consistent approach across both matters reflects the Court’s principled application of bail jurisprudence to similarly placed accused persons arising from the same incident.
Relevant Legal Provisions
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 482, BNSS 2023 | Anticipatory Bail |
| Section 482(2), BNSS 2023 | Mandatory Conditions for Anticipatory Bail |
| Section 103(1), BNS 2023 | Murder |
| Section 115(2), BNS 2023 | Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt |
| Section 118, BNS 2023 | Hurt by Dangerous Weapons |
| Section 333, BNS 2023 | House Trespass to Commit Offence |
Conclusion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order in Trilok Prasad Saket vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC 57269/2025) is a significant illustration of the principle that serious allegations against co-accused persons cannot automatically justify the pre-arrest detention of every named accused in a multi-accused FIR. Where the prosecution’s own case fails to assign a specific role to a particular accused — even in a matter involving grievous injuries — the Court is justified in granting anticipatory bail. This order, read alongside the subsequent bail order in MCRC 2643/2026 arising from the same FIR, provides practitioners with a comprehensive picture of how the MP High Court approaches bail in complex multi-accused family dispute cases under the BNSS framework.
