Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32846
1 MCRC-50439-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 12th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50439 of 2025
HARI SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Gupta advocate for the applicants.
Shri Apoorv Joshi public prosecutor for the State.
Shri Avi Jain advocate for objector.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the applicants proposes to withdraw the bail
application with reference to applicant No.1 Hari Singh.
Considered.
The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with reference to applicant
No.1 Harisingh.
The bail application is being heard with reference to other applicants.
This first application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.
238/2025 registered at Police Station - Chhapiheda, District - Rajgadh(M.P.)
for offence punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
Heard the arguments.
Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary
and the relevant material on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32846
2 MCRC-50439-2025
Learned counsel for the applicants Ramgopal, Hazarilal, Prakash Dangi,
Kushal Dangi, Kanvarlal Dangi, Meharban Dangi, Srinath Dangi, Ramsingh
Dangi and Kanhaiyalal Dangi, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the
application submits that the applicants are falsely implicated in the alleged
offence merely on the previous dispute between the parties. The parties are
distant relatives and neighbouring agriculturists. It is a case of false over
implication. Learned counsel submits that Dhapubai and Mukesh were
present at the time of dead-body panchanama, postmortem examination and
funeral of deceased Suresh Dangi on 2.9.2025. They did not make any
allegation against the applicants during lifetime or immediately after death of
S u r e s h Dangi. The allegations are leveled after premeditation and
consultation after almost one month of death of Suresh to settle the score
with regard to the previous disputes. No offence, as alleged, is committed by
the applicants. Learned counsel referring to judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in
AIR 2002 SC 199; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal,
reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in 2020(SCC Online) SC 964 and Abhinav
Mohan Delkar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 INSC 990 ,
contends that mere harassment without any positive proximate action on part
of the accused showing mens-rea to abet the suicide does not amount to
abetment for suicide. Applicants enjoy good character and social standing.
The custodial interrogation of the applicants is not needed in the matter. Jail
incarceration on false accusation would cause hardship to the applicants.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32846
3 MCRC-50439-2025
They are ready to cooperate in investigation. Therefore, applicants may be
extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State ably assisted by counsel for the
objector opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence.
Learned counsel for State refers to one criminal antecedent against
applicants Ramgopal, Kanwarlal, Ramsingh and Kanhaiyalal; two criminal
antecedents against applicants Hazarilal, Kushal, Meharban Singh and three
criminal antecedents against applicant Prakash. However, no criminal
antecedent is reported against the applicant Srinath Dangi as per the list
enclosed with the case diary.
Learned counsel for the applicants in reply submits that other matters are
pending against the applicants, the applicants have never been convicted for
any major offence, rather the deceased Suresh Dangi had 11 criminal
antecedents.
According to the material available on case diary, Suresh Dangi consumed
poisonous substance Celphos in the evening of 31.8.2025. He was admitted
for treatment at District hospital Rajgadh. He succumbed to death around
21:00 to 22:00 hours on 31.08.2025. The dead body of Suresh Dangi was
forwarded for postmortem examination. The Panchanama and postmortem
examination was conducted on 2.9.2025. The medical officer opined that
Suresh has died due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of suspected
poisoning. The Police Station Chhapiheda registered unnatural death
intimation and conducted inquest. Dhapubai, wife of deceased and Mukesh
brother of deceased alleged that there was land dispute between the parties.
Hari Singh and other accused were harassing Suresh over land dispute.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32846
4 MCRC-50439-2025
Harisingh had slapped Suresh and threatened him on the same day around
4:00 pm Suresh consumed Celphos. Suresh has died due to harassment by
the accused Harisingh, Ramgopal, Hazarilal, Prakash Dangi, Kushal Dangi,
Kanvarlal Dangi, Meharban Dangi, Srinath Dangi, Ramsingh Dangi and
Kanhaiyalal Dangi. On such allegations, the police station Chhapiheda
registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 108 and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicants are apprehending
arrest in the matter. The material on case diary does not reveal
communication or contact by the applicants Ramgopal, Hazarilal, Prakash,
Kushal, Kanwarlal, Meharban, Srinath, Ramsingh and Kanhaiyala in close
proximity of the death of Suresh Dangi. The distinct land dispute prima facie
cannot be treated as harassment leaving the deceased with no option but to
commit suicide.The veracity of prosecution will be determined after evidence
in the trial.
As informed, applicants Ramgopal is aged around 55 years, applicant
Hazarilal is aged around 62 years, both are agriculturist by profession,
applicant Prakash is aged around 33 years and is a teacher by profession,
applicant Kushal is aged around 38 years, he is unemployed, applicant
Kanwarlal is aged around 67 years and is an agriculturist by profession,
applicant Meharban is aged around 35 years and is an agriculturist by
profession, applicant Shrinath is aged around 29 years and is doctor by
profession, applicant Ram Singh is aged around 71 years and applicant
Kanhaiyalal is aged around 30 year, both of them are agriculturist by
profession. They have family responsibilities. Considering the age,
profession and status of the applicants, there appears to be no likelihood of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32846
5 MCRC-50439-2025
fleeing from justice or involving in any criminal activity. In absence of
substantial criminal past and previous conviction for any major offence,
considering the socio-economic status of the applicants, there appears to be
no likelihood of tampering with the evidence, influencing the witness or
interfering in the investigation by the applicants. The incarceration of
applicants does not appear to be necessary for the purpose of investigation.
The grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants will not cause prejudice to
free, fair and full investigation. Considering their clean past, age, status and
profession, the applicant may suffer hardship and prejudice due to
incarceration entailing social disrepute and humiliation. Considering the
overall circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits of the
accusation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Thus, the application is allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants Ramgopal,
Hazarilal, Prakash, Kushal, Kanwarlal, Meharban, Shrinath, Ram Singh, and
Kanhaiyalal shall be released on bail in connection with Crime as
mentioned in the first paragraph of this order, upon furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with
separate solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer
making arrest/the Competent Court for compliance with the following
conditions:(For the convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the
conditions of bail are reproduced in Hindi as under):-
(1) Applicants shall make themselves available for investigation as
may be directed by the Investigation Officer.
(1) vUos"k.kdrkZ iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kkuqlkj vUos"k.k gsrq vkosndx.k miyC/k
jgasxsA
(2) Applicants shall not commit or get involved in any offence of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32846
6 MCRC-50439-2025
similar nature;
(2) vkosndx.k leku izd`fr dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha djsxh ;k mlesa lfEefyr ugha
gksaxsA
(3) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade them/him/her from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to the police officer;
(3) vkosndx.k izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh O;fDr dks izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i
ls izyksHku] /kedh ;k opu ugha nsxk] ftlls ,slk O;fDr ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky;
;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks izdV djus ls fuokfjr gkssaA
(4) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper
with the evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;
(4) vkosndx.k izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls lk{; ds lkFk NsMNkM djus dk ;k
lk{kh ;k lkf{k;ksa dks cgykus&Qqlykus] ncko Mkyus ;k /kedkus dk iz;kl ugha
djssaxsA
(5) During trial, the applicants shall ensure due compliance of
provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C/346 of the BNSS. regarding
examination of witnesses in attendance;
(5) fopkj.k ds nkSjku] mifLFkr xokgksa ls ijh{k.k ds laca/k esa vkosndx.k /kkjk
309 na-iz-la-@346 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa dk mfpr vuqikyu
lqfuf'pr djsaxsA
This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of
breach of any of the preconditions of bail, the trial Court may consider on
merit cancellation of bail without any impediment from this order.
The Investigation Officer /trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced
on the personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety
concerned. If any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he
had explained the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
