The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused bail to a man accused of being involved in an incident where a police constable was allegedly hit and dragged on the bonnet of a moving car during a security drill. The court observed that the allegations indicate a serious attempt to obstruct a public servant performing official duty.
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke passed the order while hearing the first bail application filed by Munendra Singh, who has been in custody since February 5, 2026.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on the night of February 4–5, 2026, near DB Mall in Gwalior, where an NSG mock drill was underway and police personnel had been deployed to manage traffic.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Allows Minor to Use Mother’s Surname in Birth Certificate, Orders Fresh Record
Constable Ravi Kumar Vimal signaled a white Honda Amaze car to stop for checking after it was allegedly being driven rashly. Instead of stopping, the driver reportedly accelerated the vehicle and hit the constable.
The prosecution claimed that the occupants of the car pulled the constable inside and then pushed him onto the bonnet of the moving vehicle. He was allegedly dragged for around 30–40 meters before the car suddenly stopped, causing him to fall onto the road and sustain injuries.
Police intercepted the vehicle shortly afterward and arrested three occupants - the driver Ankit Gurjar and two passengers, including Munendra Singh. A criminal case was registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Counsel for the applicant argued that Munendra Singh was merely a passenger in the vehicle and was not driving the car at the time of the incident. The defence maintained that the allegations of rash driving were directed specifically against the driver.
Read also:- Supreme Court Withdraws 3 Criminal Revisions from Allahabad HC Over Delay in 1994 Murder Case Trial
The lawyer submitted that there was no specific act attributed to the applicant showing that he shared any intention to obstruct a public servant or cause injuries.
It was also argued that the investigation was largely complete, the vehicle had been seized, and the applicant had been in custody since early February. The defence relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which emphasized that arrests and prolonged custody should not be routine when the accused has cooperated with the investigation.
The State strongly opposed the bail request, arguing that the case involved a direct attack on a police officer performing official duties during a sensitive security arrangement.
The prosecution contended that the occupants of the car acted together to evade lawful checking and obstruct the constable. According to the State, the act of hitting the officer and dragging him on the bonnet showed a deliberate attempt to deter a public servant from carrying out his duty.
The State also argued that the investigation was still underway and releasing the accused at this stage could affect the inquiry or influence witnesses.
After reviewing the case record, the High Court noted that the allegations were serious and involved violence against a police officer on duty.
“The allegations prima facie indicate a concerted act on the part of the occupants of the vehicle to obstruct and deter a public servant from performing his official duty,” the bench observed.
The court also examined the defence reliance on the Satender Kumar Antil judgment but said that the principles laid down in that case could not be applied mechanically.
Justice Phadke observed that the present case involved grave accusations and a different factual situation. The court stated that bail cannot be granted solely because the investigation is substantially complete if the nature of allegations and circumstances suggest otherwise.
Issue Regarding Advocate’s Conduct
During the hearing, the court also expressed concern over the conduct of the applicant’s counsel. The judge noted that the advocate had earlier been found guilty of criminal contempt and that the conviction had been affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, although the fine imposed was reduced.
The court remarked that despite this, the lawyer continued appearing before the court without demonstrating that the contempt had been formally purged as required under the High Court rules. The court therefore directed its office to issue a show-cause notice to the advocate and also sought information from the State Bar Council regarding any action taken.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the manner in which the incident allegedly occurred, and the ongoing investigation, the High Court held that the case was not fit for grant of bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application filed by Munendra Singh was dismissed.
Case Title: Munendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 7860 of 2026
Date of Order: 23 February 2026
