IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

<>

ON THE 23

<>

rd

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 200 of 2026

<>

RAMASHANKAR SHAH

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Pradeep Naveriya - Advocate for the applicant.

<>

Ms. Nitu Pariney - Panel Lawyer for the State of M.P.

<>

ORDER

<>

Heard on admission.

This revision is admitted

<>

for final hearing.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this revision is

heard finally.

2. This revision is filed for against the order dated 10.1.2026 passed by

learned J.M.F.C., Singrauli, M.P. in R.C.T. No.318 of 2025 whereby an

application under Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. 2023 has been dismissed.

3. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State supports the impugned order

and prays for rejection of default bail application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of default bail

under Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. (new provisions under Section 480 (6) of

B.N.S.S. 2023).

5. It is seen that the charges were framed against the applicant who is

in District Jail- Pachore and was appearing through V.C. on 19.8.2025

1 CRR-200-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255

under Section 309 (4) and Section 351 (3) of B.N.S.S. (old Section 392 and

Section 506 of IPC) respectively.

6. Thereafter the first date of evidence was 26.8.2025 and on that day

as seen from the copy of order sheet nothing has been mentioned about

service of summons which were issued on 19.8.2025 against witnesses

namely Krishnamati Kushwaha, Lale Kushwaha, Phulau Kushwaha and

Shankardayal Kushwaha and simply it has been mentioned on 26.8.2025 that

summons to be issued against above mentioned witnesses and case was

adjourned to 8.9.2025. On 8.9.2025 it was mentioned that the case is fixed

for prosecution witnesses but they are not present but it is seen that no

speaking order sheet has been written regarding whether the summons were

received back or not. If they were received back what was the noting in the

summons whether they were served or unserved or witnesses not found.

Again case was posted to 18.9.2025 for recording statements of prosecution

witnesses and on 18.9.2025 again it was mentioned that witnesses nos. 1 to 3

to be summoned through summons. Case was posted for 27.9.2025. On that

day one witness namely Krishnamati Kushwaha was present. Her

examination-in-chief was conducted but cross-examination was deferred as

the time of the court was over. Other witnesses were summons through

summons. On the next date i.e. on 7.10.2025 the witness Krishnamati

Kushwaha appeared but it is simply mentioned that witness is being bound

over for the next date as the court is busy in other cases and the case was

adjourned for 16.10.2025. On 16.10.2025 the witness Krishnamati

Kushwaha was present. She was cross examined and thereafter the case was

2 CRR-200-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255

adjourned for recording statements of other prosecution witnesses to

30.10.2025. On 28.10.2025 an application under Section 480 of B.N.S.S.

2023 was filed which as rejected by learned trial court.

7. On 30.10.2025 the prosecution witnesses Babunandan Kushwaha,

Phulau Kushwaha, Shankardayal Kushwaha were present. Statements of

Babunandan Kushwaha was recorded and thereafter statements of Phulau

Kushwaha till Para-2 were recorded and as the time of the court was over

therefore cross-examination could not be conducted. The witnesses-Phulau

Kushwaha and Shankardayal Kushwaha were bound over for the next date

i.e. on 11.11.2025 and other witnesses Sant Kumar Shah, Atmaram Rajak

Ramniwas Shah and Arun Kumar Vaishya, Randheer Singh were summoned

through summons.

8. On 11.11.2025 no prosecution witness was present and again

summons were issued against the prosecution witnesses. The case was fixed

for 25.11.2025. On 25.11.2025 the witness Arun Kumar Vaishya was present

and witness - Phulau Kushwaha was absent. Therefore against Sant Kumar

Shah, Atmaram Rajak and Randhir Singh were bound over. The witness

- Phulau Kushwaha was summoned through bailable warrant of Rs.500/-.

The case was fixed to 3.12.2025. Thereafter the witness - Sant Kumar Shah

appeared on the same date. His statements were recorded. On 3.12.2025

evidence of Randhir Singh ( PW-7) was recorded. The witness - Phulau

Kushwaha was absent and Sant Kumar Shah and Atmaram Rajak were

bound over witness- Phulau Kushwaha were directed to be summoned

through bailable warrant of Rs.500/- each and the case was posted on

3 CRR-200-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255

12.12.2025. On 12.12.2025 nothing has been mentioned about receipt of

summons or bailable warrant against the witnesses and simply it has been

mentioned that bailable warrant of Rs.500/- be issued against Sant

Atmaram Atmaram and Phulau Kushwaha. The case was posted for

26.12.2025 on which date the Presiding Officer was on leave. Therefore the

statements could not be recorded. In the order sheet dated 26.12.2025, it is

also mentioned that the prosecution witnesses are not present therefore let

them be summoned as per order before and the case was fixed for 8.1.2026.

On 8.1.2026 the prosecution witnesses - Shankardayal was present. He was

examined. The witness - Phulau Kushwaha was absent and therefore

bailable warrant was issued against Phulau Kushwaha and Atmaram Rajak

and the witnesses - Sant Kumar and Rambahori were summoned through

summons.

9. On 10.1.2026 an application under Section 480 (6) of B.N.N.S.

2023 was filed which was rejected by the trial court on the same day.

Learned trial court mentioned while disposing of the application that the

incident is of 25.7.2024

<>

in the afternoon when in the forest prosecutrix

Krishmati was stopped on her way by the accused and the accused

Ramashankar Shah and committed a loot of her ornaments and also threated

her.

10. Learned trial court has mentioned that in M.Cr.C. No.57947 of

2025 the appellant - accused withdrew the revision and learned trial was

directed to consider the bail application on merits without considering the

fact that this High Court has dismissed the bail application.

4 CRR-200-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255

11. Thereafter court proceeded to dispose of the application on merits

holding that earlier bail application was rejected and since there is no change

in the circumstances. Accordingly third application is rejected.

12, Now the order dated 10.1.2026 passed by learned J.M.F.C.,

Singrauli, M.P. in R.C.T. No.318 of 2025 is under challenge before this

court.

13. Learned counsel for the revisioner submits that the application for

default bail is Annexure A-3 from page-12 to page 15 in which paga no.14

and 15 are his affidavits.

14. It is seen that although in the heading the application has been

filed under Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. but in the body of the application

clear pleading is not made. Therefore, two things are very clear that for the

first time although the application was filed under Section 480 (6) of

B.N.S.S. but in such application the simple ground of not disposing of the

case in the light of provision under Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. is mentioned

which is read as under :-

480. When bail may be taken in case of non - bailable offence :-

<>

(1) ...........................................................................................................................

(2) ...........................................................................................................................

(3) ..........................................................................................................................

(4) ..........................................................................................................................

(5) .........................................................................................................................

(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non -

bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for

taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the

said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be

5 CRR-200-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255

recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs."

15. Therefore it seems that on account of the pleadings in the

application like that he is in jail for six months, he is very poor and offence

is not punishable with death sentence some confusion perhaps has crept into

the logic of the learned Trial Court Judge. It is also seen that while

disposing of M.Cr.C. No.57947 of 2025 on 9.1.2026 the applicant withdrew

the aforesaid M.Cr.C. with the liberty to file an application before the

learned Magistrate under Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S. and accordingly

M.Cr.C. was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty that if the bail

application is filed before the Magistrate Court under Section 480 (6) of the

B.N.S.S. 2023 then it has to be considered on merit.

16. Therefore it seems that learned trial court has not understood the

real purpose of the order of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court.

17. Even otherwise it is settled proposition of law that correct a

interpretation of the application has to be applied although the ground of

Section 480 (6) of B.N.S.S.was not mentioned but the application was filed

under that provision and it was even referred into the order of Hon'ble

Coordinate Bench of this Court. It shall be referred by learned Magistrate

therefore the order of Magistrate cannot be allowed to be sustained and is

accordingly set aside by allowing the application for grant of default bail.

18. As the trial has not been concluded within 60 days from the first

date of the evidence by the trial court after framing of the charges, order

dated 10.1.2026 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Singrauli, M.P. in R.C.T.

6 CRR-200-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

<>

JUDGE

<>

No.318 of 2025 is set aside and the default bail is allowed and it is directed

that on furnishing a personal of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only)

<>

alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial the

applicant shall be released on bail.

19. This revision is disposed of.

bks

7 CRR-200-2026NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15255