Abhishek Jain vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, subject to stringent conditions. The reasoning focused on the applicant's submission that a compromise had been reached, all material had been supplied, and only GST was outstanding. The Court noted the applicant's contention that the gold was of the required quality and that the silver had been sold to the complainant, implying no further recovery was needed from the applicant. The Court also considered the fact that the charge sheet had been filed and that the trial would take time. The bail was granted upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, and subject to several conditions including cooperation in the trial, not tampering with evidence, not committing similar offences, not seeking adjournments, not leaving India without permission, and marking presence at the police station fortnightly until the trial concludes. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

This is a second bail application filed by Abhishek Jain concerning Crime No. 53/2025, registered at Police Station Sarafa, District Indore, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS, 2023. The applicant has been in custody since August 12, 2026, and a charge sheet was filed on February 23, 2026. The applicant contends that a compromise was reached between the parties on February 23, 2025, prior to the FIR being lodged on April 28, 2025. Documents suggest that the entire gold and silver material was supplied by the applicant, with only the GST amount remaining to be paid by the complainant. The applicant claims the gold was of the required quality, evidenced by a certificate, and the silver was sold to the complainant, meaning all material is with the complainant. The applicant also notes that CCTV footage seized by the police supports his claim of supplying the material. The State and complainant argue that the applicant did not hand over the required quality of gold and silver despite the compromise, leading to the complaint.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in light of the charge sheet being filed and the alleged compromise between the parties, considering the nature of the offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS, 2023? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that a compromise was reached before the FIR, all material (gold and silver) was supplied, and only GST was outstanding. They relied on documents showing the quality of gold and the sale of silver to the complainant, indicating no material is left for seizure from the applicant. The applicant also pointed to CCTV footage supporting their claims and highlighted that their criminal antecedents are not of a similar nature and that the trial will take time. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent State and complainant opposed bail, asserting that the applicant failed to provide the required quality of gold and silver even after the compromise, justifying the FIR. They argued that the filing of the charge sheet is not a sole ground for granting bail, as ample material exists on record.