ANKIT VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present first bail applications 483 of BNSS filed by the applicants No.1 to 3, namely, Ankit Verma, Rukmani Rajput and Bhupendra respectively for grant of bail. They have been arrested on 17/10/2025 by Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.357 of 2025 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Ss. 308(2), 308(6), 61(2), 115(2), 127(2) of BNS, 2023.

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Ravindra Kushwah had lodged a reported to the effect that he is a resident of Village Piparsewa, Police Station Rithaura Kalan, and works as a laborer (beldaari). He lives with his parents, brother Ravi, and sister-in-law Manisha. One Omwati Kushwah, who is his relative (sister-in-law by relation), used to tell him that she would introduce him to her friend Rukmani Bhitarwar. On 15/10/2025, at around 2:30 PM, Omwati called him and told him to come to Gwalior, assuring him that all arrangements had been made and the girl (Rukmani) was also ready. Believing her, he went to her house near Kalpi Bridge around 6-7 PM on his motorcycle, where he found Omwati alone. After some time, she brought Rukmani back to the room. The three of them then had dinner together. Afterwards, Omwati took the complainant and Rukmani to Govardhan Colony, to the house of Rukmani's brother Aditya, and left them in a room before going out. Around 11:30 PM, Rukmani asked him to remove his clothes. At that very moment, Omwati (applicant No.2), Kaushal Parihar, Ankit Verma(applicant No.1), and Aditya Bhadoriya entered the room and accused him of committing a wrongful act with the girl. They told him that they would file a rape case (Sec. 376 IPC) against him. Even Rukmani began telling him that she would lodge such a case. The accused persons then tied his hands and legs, stuffed a cloth in his mouth, and beat him with kicks and punches, causing swelling on his left eye, both cheeks, and blunt injuries on his left arm. Co-accused Kaushal told him that if he didn't want to be falsely implicated, he must pay Rs.10.00 lakh, otherwise they would frame him in a false case. Out of fear, he gave Rs.8,000.00 in cash from his pocket to Omwati. The accused persons then called someone on the phone, demanding that he should arrange for the remaining money. Ankit (applicant No.1) told him that it was better to agree to their demand than go to jail, while Aditya took away his motorcycle keys. He further stated that on 16/10/2025, around 5:00 AM, the accused continued to beat and threaten him. Kaushalendra took the SIM card out of his mobile phone and dropped him at a street corner, warning him to arrange the money by 12 noon, failing which they would have him falsely implicated and he would "rot in jail for life." After this, the complainant called his brother Kallu, who took him home, where he narrated the entire incident. On the basis of such allegations, alleged crime was registered against the accused persons under Ss. 308(2), 308(6), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). During the investigation, a site map of the scene was prepared and the statements of the complainant were recorded. On the basis of the collected evidence, Ss. 115(2) and 127(2) of the BNS were added to the case, and the applicant/accused was arrested. Further investigation in the matter is still under progress.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations made in the prosecution story are highly improbable, inconsistent, and motivated. It is contended that the complainant has given an exaggerated version of events, converting what was, at most, a personal or consensual interaction into a criminal case with the sole purpose of exerting pressure and extracting money. The entire prosecution case, according to the defence, suffers from material contradictions and inherent improbabilities. It is further submitted that the FIR does not assign any specific or overt role to the applicants and makes only vague and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons collectively. It is submitted that such general allegations, without any specific attribution of act or intent, do not fulfil the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Ss. 308(2), 308(6), 61(2), 115(2), and 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.