inkinccorporation@gmail.com Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
1 MCRC-7860-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7860 of 2026
MUNENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This is the first bail application 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) filed by
the applicant for grant of bail. He has been arrested on 05.02.2026 by Police
Station Padav, District Guna (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.21 of
2026 registered in relation to offence punishable under Sections 132, 121(1),
127(2), 281, and 125-A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
[2] As per prosecution story, Constable Bakendra Malaya of Police
Station Gole Ka Mandir, along with complainant Constable Ravi Kumar
Vimal, was on duty on 04.02.2026 in front of DB Mall, where an NSG mock
drill was being conducted. They were deployed for traffic management under
the supervision of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic), along with
fellow Constable Digambar Sharma and driver Constable Devendra Kumar.
In the intervening night of 04.02.2026 and 05.02.2026, at about 00:10 AM, a
white Honda Amaze car bearing registration No. MP 07-CJ-1124 was being
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
2 MCRC-7860-2026
driven from the Bus Stand Tiraha side in a rash and negligent manner. On the
instructions of Constable Digambar Sharma, the complainant signaled the
vehicle to stop and placed a stopper. However, in order to avoid challan and
checking, and with intention of obstructing Government work, the driver
accelerated the vehicle and hit him. Thereafter, the driver and two other
persons sitting in the car pulled the complainant inside the vehicle and
pushed him near the gate. One of the occupants threw him onto the bonnet of
the car, and he was dragged on the bonnet for about 30-40 meters. The driver
then suddenly applied brakes, due to which the complainant fell headfirst
from the bonnet onto the ground. As a result, he sustained injuries to his
head and leg, and bleeding occurred. The driver of the said car fled from the
spot. A wireless message was immediately sent to the Control Room to
intercept and apprehend the vehicle. Acting on the information, the police
personnel deployed on FRV-20 of Police Station Gole Ka Mandir
intercepted and caught the said car. Apart from the driver, two other persons
were found seated in the vehicle. The driver disclosed his name as Ankit
Gurjar, and the other two occupants revealed their names as Munendra
Bhadauria and Shohil Khan. Thereafter, the complainant Constable Ravi
Kumar Vimal was taken to Parivar Hospital for medical treatment. On the
basis of the report given by complainant Constable Ravi Kumar Vimal,
alleged crime bearing No.21 of 2026 was registered at the concerned police
station under Sections 132, 121(1), 127(2), 281 and 125(A) of the BNS. The
matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation, a site map of the
place of occurrence was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
3 MCRC-7860-2026
and the vehicle used in the offence was seized. The accused persons were
arrested. Further investigation in the case is ongoing.
[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is in custody
since 05.02.2026. It is further submitted that the applicant was merely a
passenger in the vehicle and was not driving the car at the time of the alleged
incident. The entire allegation of rash and negligent driving is specifically
attributed to the co-accused who was driving the vehicle. There is no specific
overt act assigned to the present applicant demonstrating that he shared any
common intention to obstruct a public servant in discharge of official duty or
to cause injuries to the complainant. The allegations against the applicant are
general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose his active participation in
the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that
the applicant is a permanent resident of District Bhnd and there is no
likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. The
vehicle in question has already been seized, statements of material witnesses
have been recorded, and the applicant is no longer required for custodial
interrogation. Continued detention of the applicant would therefore serve no
useful purpose. It is also argued that the offences alleged, though serious in
nature, are based primarily on the version of the complainant, and the role of
the present applicant is yet to be established during trial. The trial is likely to
take considerable time to conclude, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration
would amount to punitive detention before adjudication of guilt.
[4] Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
4 MCRC-7860-2026
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satender Kumar
Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and
submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid decision, has
comprehensively laid down the principles governing grant of bail and has
emphasized that arrest and detention should not be mechanical, particularly
when the accused has cooperated with the investigation and the offences are
triable by a Magistrate. In the present case, the investigation is substantially
complete, and no further custodial interrogation is required. He is ready to
abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed. With the aforesaid
submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made out.
[5] Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently
opposed the bail application and submits that the present case is of a grave
and serious nature involving a direct assault on a police constable who was
discharging his official duties during a sensitive security arrangement in
connection with an NSG mock drill. It is further submitted that the incident
was not a simple case of rash and negligent driving, but a deliberate and
concerted act committed with intention to obstruct a public servant from
performing his lawful duty and to evade lawful checking. It is further
submitted that when the complainant signaled the vehicle to stop and placed
a stopper in the course of official duty, the driver, along with the co-accused
persons including the present applicant, acted in furtherance of their common
intention and accelerated the vehicle, resulting in the complainant being hit.
Thereafter, the complainant was allegedly pulled, thrown onto the bonnet of
the moving vehicle, and dragged for a considerable distance, thereby
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
5 MCRC-7860-2026
endangered his life. Such conduct demonstrates not only rashness but a clear
intention to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty, attracting the
stringent provisions invoked in the case. It is further submitted that the
present applicant was not a mere passive passenger, but an active participant
in the incident and the allegations specifically indicate that the occupants of
the vehicle collectively acted against the complainant. At this stage, the role
attributed to the applicant cannot be brushed aside, and the plea of false
implication is a matter of trial.
[6] It is also submitted that the investigation is still ongoing and certain
aspects are yet to be examined. If the applicant is released on bail at this
stage, there is every likelihood that he may influence witnesses or hamper
the investigation. Considering the gravity of the offence, the manner of
commission, and the impact on public order, the applicant does not deserve
the discretionary relief of bail. On these grounds, it is prayed that the bail
application be rejected.
[7] Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the
material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the
applicant are serious in nature and the prosecution case disclosed that the
complainant, a police constable, was discharging his official duties at the
time of the incident. Despite being signaled to stop for lawful checking, the
vehicle in question was allegedly driven in a rash and deliberate manner,
resulted in the complainant being hit, dragged on the bonnet of the car, and
sustained injuries. The manner in which the incident is alleged to have
occurred prima facie indicated a concerted act on the part of the occupants of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
6 MCRC-7860-2026
the vehicle to obstruct and deterred a public servant from performing his
official duty.
[8] At this stage, the statements recorded during investigation and the
circumstances surrounding the incident do not persuade this Court to hold
that the applicant’s role is so minimal as to entitle him to the discretionary
relief of bail. The gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations, and the
impact of such conduct on public administration, particularly when it
involves an attack on a police personnel on duty, weigh against the applicant.
[9] Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central
Bureau of Investigation (supra) to contend that arrest and continued
incarceration should not be mechanical, particularly where the offences are
triable by a Magistrate and custodial interrogation is not required.
[10] This Court has carefully considered the aforesaid decision. In
Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court primarily dealt with
the issue of unnecessary arrests, prolonged incarceration, and the need to
rationalize bail jurisprudence in cases where the accused had cooperated with
the investigation and where the offences were not of such gravity as to
warrant continued custody. The judgment laid down broad guidelines to
prevent routine arrests and to streamline the grant of bail in appropriate
categories of cases.
[11] However, the facts of the present case stand on a distinct footing.
The allegations herein disclose a prima facie deliberate and concerted act
resulting in an assault upon a police constable who was discharging official
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
7 MCRC-7860-2026
duties in connection with a sensitive security arrangement. The nature of the
accusations, the manner of commission of the offence, and the stage of
investigation differentiate the present case from the factual matrix
contemplated in Satender Kumar Antil (supra). The said judgment does not
lay down an absolute proposition that bail must be granted in every case
where investigation is substantially complete, irrespective of the gravity and
surrounding circumstances. Accordingly, the reliance placed upon Satender
Kumar Antil (supra) does not advance the case of the applicant in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present matter, and the same stands
distinguished.
[12] This Court is mindful of the settled principles governing grant of
bail; however, considering the seriousness of the accusations, the manner of
commission of the offence, and the stage of investigation, this Court is not
inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.
[13] Before parting with the matter, it is necessary to express this
Court’s serious concern regarding the conduct of Shri Awdhesh Singh
Bhadauria, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Shri Bhadauria has
already been held guilty of criminal contempt by this Court vide order dated
26.04.2024 in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 15 of 2018. The said
judgment attained finality when the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No(s). 2560 of 2024 declined to interfere with the finding of guilt
and merely reduced the quantum of costs. Therefore, the conviction for
criminal contempt remains subsisting.
[14] Relevant extract of the order dated 26.04.2024 reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
8 MCRC-7860-2026
“19. On being asked to address on the quantum of
punishment to be awarded to the respondent-contemnor who
is present in person, he submits that today he has moved an
application for seeking unconditional apology of this Court
and prays that in view of the said apology, the proceedings
may be dropped though in the application the respondent-
contemnor has not withdrawn the contentions as raised by
him in the reply and the applications, but he only submits
that he may be pardoned for his act and in future the same
shall not be repeated.
20. The respondent party in person though has
submitted I.A. No.5614 of 2024 and has orally resiled from
the contention earlier raised and had tendered his apology but
since he has already been held guilty for criminal contempt
as defined u/s 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the
language which is used in his application and complaint and
the allegations leveled against Hon’ble Judges repeatedly
despite various warnings having been given to him coupled
with the fact it is found that his apology appears just to save
the skin, therefore, this Court while exercising powers under
Article 215 of the Constitution deems it appropriate to
impose punishment upon him. In this regard, reference can
be had of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vijay Kurle, In re, (2021)13 SCC 616 wherein it is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
9 MCRC-7860-2026
held :
“11. Samaraditya Pal in The Law of Contempt [Pp. 9-
10, The Law of Contempt : Contempt of Courts and
Legislatures, 5th Edn., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur (2013)] has very succinctly stated the legal position
as follows:
“Although the law of contempt is largely governed by
the 1971 Act, it is now settled law in India that the High
Courts and the Supreme Court derive their jurisdiction and
power from Articles 215 and 129 of the Constitution. This
situation results in giving scope for “judicial selfdealing”.”
12. The High Courts also enjoy similar powers like the
Supreme Court under Article 215 of the Constitution. The
main argument of the alleged contemnors is that notice
should have been issued in terms of the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act and any violation of the Contempt of
Courts Act would vitiate the entire proceedings. We do not
accept this argument. In view of the fact that the power to
punish for contempt of itself is a constitutional power vested
in this Court, such power cannot be abridged or taken away
even by legislative enactment.”
21. In Re : Perry Kansagra (2022 SCC OnLine SC
1516), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :-
“24. It is now well settled that the power of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:677710 MCRC-7860-2026
SupremeCourt to punish for contempt is not confined to the
procedure under the Contempt of Courts Act. In Pallav
Sheth vs Custodian (2001) 7 SCC 549, this Court held that:–
“30. There can be no doubt that both this Court and
High Courts are courts of record and the Constitution has
given them the powers to punish for contempt. The decisions
of this Court clearly show that this power cannot be
abrogated or stultified. But if the power under Article 129
and Article 215 is absolute, can there by any legislation
indicating the manner and to the extent that the power can be
exercised? If there is any provision of the law which stultifies
or abrogates the power under Article 129 and/or Article 215,
there can be little doubt that such law would not be regarded
as having been validly enacted. It, however, appears to us
that providing for the quantum of punishment or what may or
may not be regarded as acts of contempt or even providing
for a period of limitation for initiating proceedings for
contempt cannot be taken to be a provision which abrogates
or stultifies the contempt jurisdiction under Article 129 or
Article 215 of the Constitution.”
25. The above said principle is followed in Re : Vijay
Kurle (supra), where this Court reiterated the above referred
principle and held as under:–
“38. The aforesaid finding clearly indicates that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:677711 MCRC-7860-2026
Court held that any law which stultifies or abrogates the
power of the Supreme Court under Article 129 of the
Constitution or of the High Courts under Article 215 of the
Constitution, could not be said to be validly enacted. It
however, went on to hold that providing the quantum of
punishment or a period of limitation would not mean that the
powers of the Court under Article 129 have been stultified or
abrogated. We are not going into the correctness or otherwise
of this judgment but it is clear that this judgment only dealt
with the issue whether the Parliament could fix a period of
limitation to initiate the proceedings under the Act. Without
commenting one way or the other on Pallav Seth‘s case
(supra) it is clear that the same has not dealt with the powers
of this Court to issue suo motu notice of contempt.
39. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of
the view that the powers of the Supreme Court to initiate
contempt are not in any manner limited by the provisions of
the Act. This Court is vested with the constitutional powers
to deal with the contempt. Section 15 is not the source of the
power to issue notice for contempt. It only provides the
procedure in which such contempt is to be initiated and this
procedure provides that there are three ways of initiating a
contempt – (i) suo motu (ii) on the motion by the Advocate
General/Attorney General/Solicitor General and (iii) on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
12 MCRC-7860-2026
basis of a petition filed by any other person with the consent
in writing of the Advocate General/Attorney
General/Solicitor General. As far as suo motu petitions are
concerned, there is no requirement for taking consent of
anybody because the Court is exercising its inherent powers
to issue notice for contempt. This is not only clear from the
provisions of the Act but also clear from the Rules laid down
by this Court.”
22. A Division Bench of Jabalpur Bench of this Court
in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.11 of 2012 (Mukesh
Kumar Agrawal vs. Shri Gulab Kothari, Managing Director
cum Owner, Patrika Daily Newspaper and others) by order
dated 17.08.2023 has passed the following order:-
“(i) The respondents No.2 and 3 shall pay the fine of
Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2,000/- each) before the Registry of this Court
within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, failing which they are directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of ten days.
(ii) The respondents No.2 and 3 shall deposit the cost
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- each) before the Madhya
Pradesh High Court Employees Association, Jabalpur (S.B.
A/c No.519302010000235, Union Bank of India, High Court
Branch, Jabalpur) within fifteen days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
13 MCRC-7860-2026
23. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order dated 24.11.2023 passed
in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14678 of 2023
(Dhananjay Pratap Singh and another vs. Mukesh Kumar
Agrawal).
24. For all the aforementioned reasons and considering
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid cases, we are of the considered view that imposing
fine and cost on the respondent Contemnor instead of
sending him to jail would be a just and appropriate
punishment. Hence, we pass the following orders:-
(i) Respondent-contemnor is held guilty of committing
a criminal contempt as defined u/s. 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971;
(ii) The respondent-contemnor shall pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- before the Registry of this Court within fifteen
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing
which he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 10 days.
(iii) The respondent-contemnor shall pay costs of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) with the M.P. High Court
Bar Association, Gwalior (SB A/c No.326802012000285,
IFSC CODE: UBIN0563561, Union Bank of India, Branch
High Court, Gwalior) within fifteen days from the date ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:677714 MCRC-7860-2026
receipt of a copy of this order.
25. The contempt petition (criminal) is hereby disposed
off. All the aforementioned I.As also stand disposed off.”
[15] Relevant extract of the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under:
“2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the High Court.
3. However, the fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/- imposed
on the appellant vide the impugned order is reduced to
Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. The criminal appeal stands disposed of.”
[16] Rule 16 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Conditions of
Practice) Rules, 2012, explicitly mandates that no advocate who has been
found guilty of criminal contempt shall appear, act, or plead before this
Court or any subordinate Court in the District where the contempt was
committed unless the contempt has been duly purged. In the present case,
there is no material on record to indicate that Shri Bhadauria has undertaken
any steps to purge himself of the contempt. Mere modification of the fine by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not amount to exoneration nor does it
constitute purgation under the law.
[17] Despite this, Shri Bhadauria was/is appearing and arguing the
cases. Here, during the hearing on the bail application, he repeatedly
attempted to divert the proceedings from the bail issues, raised matters
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
15 MCRC-7860-2026
already concluded by judicial orders, and made insinuatory and provocative
remarks. His submissions were argumentative beyond permissible limits and
bordered on defiance of judicial discipline. He attempted to introduce
personal vindication, challenge settled findings, and focus on extraneous
matters rather than the merits of the application.
[18] The tone, tenor, and manner of submissions reflected a deliberate
attempt to intimidate and influence the Court, rather than to responsibly
argue the merits of the case. His submissions exhibited a lack of restraint,
decorum, and adherence to the ethical standards expected of an officer of the
Court. The Court notes that advocacy carries with it not merely the right to
argue zealously on behalf of a client, but also a concomitant duty to uphold
the dignity, authority, and decorum of the judicial process. In this instance,
the conduct of Shri Bhadauria fell short of these responsibilities.
[19] The legal position in this regard is well settled. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India reported
i n 1998 4 SCC 409 reaffirmed that constitutional courts have the inherent
power to regulate the appearance of advocates to ensure discipline and
decorum, distinct from disciplinary control vested in Bar Councils. In Bar
Council of India v. High Court of Kerala reported in 2004 6 SCC 311 and
Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2016 8 SCC 335 , it
was held that the right to practice law is subject to regulatory control, and an
advocate’s conduct in court may justify limitation or debarment from
appearance. Further, in R. Muthukrishnan v. High Court of Madras reported
in 2019 16 SCC 407 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that constitutional courts
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
16 MCRC-7860-2026
possess inherent powers to debar an advocate from appearing in appropriate
cases to preserve dignity and orderly functioning.
[20] In the instant matter, the combination of a subsisting conviction
for criminal contempt, lack of any purgation, and the aggressive, distracting,
and defiant conduct displayed by Shri Bhadauria during the hearing,
demonstrates not only a violation of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012 but also a
disregard for the authority and majesty of the Court. Such conduct tends to
undermine the institutional discipline and the orderly administration of
justice.
[21] In view of Rule 16 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
(Conditions of Practice) Rules, 2012, and in light of the order dated
26.04.2024 passed in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 15 of 2018, whereby
Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria was held guilty of criminal contempt–an
order which has attained finality upon affirmation by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court–this Court is constrained to take cognizance of the continued
appearance of Shri Bhadauria before this Court without any material
demonstrating that the contempt has been duly purged.
[22] Accordingly, in exercise of the constitutional and inherent powers
vested in this Court to ensure adherence to its Rules and to maintain the
dignity and orderly functioning of judicial proceedings, the Office is directed
to issue a show-cause notice to Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria, calling upon
him to explain under what authority he was/is appearing, acting, and
pleading before this Court in the absence of compliance with Rule 16 of the
Rules, 2012.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6777
17 MCRC-7860-2026
[23] The Office is further directed to issue notice to the State Bar
Council to inform this Court of the steps taken, if any, pursuant to the
aforesaid order dated 26.04.2024, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, and if not taken, action would be taken as may be warranted in
accordance with law.
[24] Both notices shall be issued within seven days from 26.02.2026
and shall be made returnable within four weeks thereafter.
[25] List the matter in the week commencing 06.04.2026 for further
consideration under the head “Direction”.
[26] A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Registrar General
through the Principal Registrar of this Bench to be placed before the Hon’ble
Chief Justice for information and to the State Bar Council for compliance.
[27] In view of the serious nature of the allegations, the gravity of the
offence, and the ongoing investigation, the bail application of Munendra
Singh is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 2/27/2026
6:02:16 PM
