Archive · 2 Nov 2025
Indore High Court Upholds Attempt-to-Murder Charges Against Akshay Bam and Father
Imagine two people, Akshay and his dad, had a fight over land back in 2007.
Someone accused them of trying to hurt him badly, like trying to shoot him.
They went to court and said they didn't try to shoot anyone and that it was a mistake.
But the judge said that because they had a gun and someone saw them, there's enough reason to believe they might have tried to hurt the person.
So, the judge decided they still have to face the serious charge of trying to murder someone, and the case can continue.
It’s like a referee saying a game can go on because there’s enough evidence to look into a foul, even if the players think it was an accident.
Indore High Court upheld attempt-to-murder charges against Akshay Bam and his father, Kantilal Bam.
The charges stem from a violent land dispute that occurred on October 4, 2007.
The High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by the Bams challenging the charges.
The court stated that the presence of a firearm and witness statements created suspicion sufficient for framing charges.
The trial will now proceed on the attempt-to-murder charges.
- Who
- Akshay Bam, his father Kantilal Bam, and complainant Yunus Patel
- What
- The High Court upheld attempt-to-murder charges against Akshay Bam and his father in a 2007 land dispute.
- When
- October 31 (reserved order pronounced), October 4, 2007 (incident)
- Where
- Indore, Madhya Pradesh
- Why
- The High Court found sufficient evidence, including the presence of a firearm and witness statements, to proceed with charges of attempt to murder, rejecting the petitioners' claims of political motivation and lack of evidence.
Arguments by Akshay Bam and Kantilal Bam
High Court's Findings
Evidence of Firing and Intent
Arguments by Akshay Bam and Kantilal Bam
There was no evidence of firing or intent to kill complainant Yunus Patel.
High Court's Findings
The presence of a firearm, used cartridge, and witness statements created a 'grave suspicion' sufficient for framing charges, and injury is not a prerequisite for Section 307 IPC.
Motive for Charges
Arguments by Akshay Bam and Kantilal Bam
The inclusion of Section 307 (attempt to murder) was politically motivated, as Akshay Bam had switched to BJP during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
High Court's Findings
The court found no illegality in the trial court's decision to frame charges and upheld the framing of charges, implying the legal process was followed correctly.
Timing of FIR
Arguments by Akshay Bam and Kantilal Bam
The firing claim was an afterthought made 12 days later and the case was filed as a 'counterblast' to another FIR lodged earlier against the complainant.
High Court's Findings
The court focused on the evidence presented and the legal standard for framing charges, not the specific timing claims as a basis for dismissal.
- Court
- Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Case Date
- October 4, 2007
- Charges
- Attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC)
- Legal Action
- Dismissal of criminal revision petition filed by Akshay Bam and Kantilal Bam
- Key Evidence Mentioned
- Presence of firearm, used cartridge, witness statements