Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devesh Argal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13109
1 MCRC-27009-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 27 th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27009 of 2025
DEVESH ARGAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri M.S.Dhakad - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rajendra Yadav - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483
of BNSS, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail in connection with Crime
No.195/2023 registered at Police Station Gohad Chouraha, District Bhind (M.P.)
for the commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 193 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the applicant filed a forged
birth certificate of the prosecutrix before this Court for securing anticipatory bail
in MCRC No.37609/2022. This Court vide order dated 20.08.2022, while granting
anticipatory bail to the applicant, directed the Investigating Officer to conduct an
inquiry as regards veracity of the birth certificate of the prosecutrix submitted by
the applicant in Crime No.167/2022, registered for the commission of offence
under Sections 363,. 366, 366-A, 376(2)(n) of IPC r/w Section 5L/6 of POCSO
Act. Thereafter, upon due inquiry, the birth certificate of the prosecutrix filed by
the applicant was found to be forged and therefore, the questioned FIR has been
registered. It is alleged that the forged birth certificate was prepared by the
applicant using his mobile phone, which has been sent for forensic examination,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/1/2025
10:14:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13109
2 MCRC-27009-2025
and the report whereof is still awaited.
3. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the matter. He is in custody since 03.03.2025
and the investigation in the matter is complete, and the challan has been filed. He
further submits that the birth certificate produced by the applicant before this
Court in MCRC No.37609/2022 was given to him by the prosecutrix herself. It is
further submitted that co-accused in the matter namely, Adarsh Kumar has been
granted benefit of anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
(Criminal) No.3490/2025 vide order dated 15.05.2025, as the prosecutrix herself
stated during the trial that she handed over the birth certificate to one Devesh
Argal (present applicant). On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of bail
to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail
application, submitting that the first bail application filed by the applicant bearing
MCRC No.19892/2025, was rejected by detailed order dated 13.05.2025 and the
contentions being advanced by counsel for applicant already stands considered
earlier and there is no material change in circumstances, on the basis whereof the
instant second bail application could be entertained. Accordingly, he prayed for
rejection of bail application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as
record.
6. The perusal of the record indicates that the first bail application filed by
the applicant bearing MCRC No.19892/2025 was dismissed by a reasoned order,
wherein the arguments being advanced by the counsel for applicant in the present
case were considered. There appears to be no material change in circumstances
after filing of the challan as the grounds advanced on behalf of the applicant are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/1/2025
10:14:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13109
3 MCRC-27009-2025
the same which were considered in the earlier bail application.
7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu
Yadav V. CBI Through its Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail,
can not be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of
accused to conduct the defence. Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kajad,
(2001) 7 SCC 673 observed ” It is true that successive bail applications are
permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the
circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of
the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held
by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments.”
8. In view of the above, this Court do not find any material change in
circumstances after rejection of the earlier first bail application filed by the
applicant vide order dated 13.05.2025, wherein the nature of allegation levelled
against the present applicant and the gravity of offence against criminal justice
system, were considered.
9. Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed by the applicant is
hereby rejected.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/1/2025
10:14:27 AM