Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Suryvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16251
1 MCRC-23495-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23495 of 2025
ARVIND SURYVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Arun Kumar Paterya - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - P.P. for respondent/State.
Shri Shriratan Nigam - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.14695/2025, which is an application under Section 338 (2)
of BNSS, seeking permission to assist the Public Prosecutor in the matter.
2.For the reasons assigned therein, the same is allowed and the counsel for
complainant is permitted to assist the PP in the matter.
3.The applicant has filed the fourth repeat bail application under Section
483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in connection with Crime
No.463/2020 registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the
commission of offence under Sections 498(A), 304 (B), 34 of IPC and Section 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act. The earlier bail applications filed by the applicant were
dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 24.07.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.25033/2024, order dated 18.10.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. No.43513/2024
and order dated 01.04.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.13207/2025.
4.The applicant is the jeth of the deceased. The case of the prosecution, in
short, is that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the brother of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16251
2 MCRC-23495-2025
applicant namely Hemant on 29.02.2020 who died by hanging herself on
26.10.2020 i.e. within a short span of time and therefore, after recording the
statements of the family members, the offences in question have been registered.
5.The counsel appearing for the applicant submits that though, earlier bail
applications filed by him have been withdrawn, however, there is no bar in
consideration of the subsequent bail applications. He submits that the applicant is
working in a private firm at Pune since 2019. The applicant was married on
25.02.2020 just few days prior to the marriage of his younger brother. On learning
about the death of the wife of his younger brother, he travelled from Pune to
Gwalior on 27.06.2020. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has no
occasion to raise any demand of dowry from the family members of the deceased
as he was residing separately. He further submits that vide judgment dated
18.08.2023, the husband and father-in-law were tried for the offences in question
in S.T. No.71/2022 and the father-in-law has been acquitted whereas, the husband
of the deceased has been convicted for the offence in question. The case of the
present applicant stands at par with the father-in-law and therefore, the possibility
of his acquittal exists. On such grounds, prayer for enlargement on bail is made.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that
perusal of the orders passed in the earlier three bail applications filed by the
applicant reveal that the arguments which are sought to be advanced stands
virtually considered as the bail applications were permitted to be withdrawn after
arguments. There is no change in circumstances after passing of the order dated
1.4.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.13207/2025. That apart, he submits that the
applicant was well aware of the registration of the crime in question since the year
2020. However, he remained out of bounds of law for a period of nearly four years
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16251
3 MCRC-23495-2025
and only surrendered on 3.6.2024. The conduct of the applicant is also required to
be taken into consideration. That apart, he submits that the deposition of
prosecution witnesses namely Keshav Jatav (PW/1) father of the deceased,
Phoolwati (PW/2) mother of the deceased would reveal that there is specific
allegations against the present applicant at par with that as has been levelled
against Hemant and therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the
applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
8. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case and the role attributable to the present applicant and his conduct, this
Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the
present fourth repeat bail application stands rejected.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
