Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rukmani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26388
1 MCRC-47775-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47775 of 2025
RUKMANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Brajesh Kumar Tyagi - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Saket Udeniya - PP for the State.
ORDER
1. This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the
BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends her arrest in
connection with Crime No.546/2025 registered at Police Station Pichore, District
Shivpuri for offence under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNS.
2. Story of the prosecution is that the deceased had committed suicide by
way of consuming some poisonous substance. The allegation is that the present
applicant is the wife of the deceased and she was having extramarital affairs with
the co-accused which caused the deceased mental torture due to which he
committed suicide. The act of the present applicant was abetment of suicide which
compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Accordingly, offence has been
registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no direct or indirect involvement in
the aforesaid incident. No case of abetment is made out against the applicant. In
the present case there was no instigation on the part of the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26388
2 MCRC-47775-2025
4. Learned counsel for applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sanju Vs. State of M.P. (2002 5 SCC 371),
judgement of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Samarjeet Yadav and another Vs.
State of M.P. and another (2023 (1) MPLJ 680) and judgment of Apex Court in
the case of K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka ( 2017) 11 SCC 176. It is
argued that in the cases of under Section 108 of BNS, there clear instigation must
be there. But, in the present case, there is no material available on record to show
that the applicant ever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
5. The applicant is having no criminal antecedents. Any act of the applicant
does not come under the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS.
Investigation is almost over, therefore, custodial interrogation is not required. The
applicant is a permanent resident of District - Shivpuri (M.P) and there is no
possibility of her absconsion and tampering with the prosecution evidence. The
trial will take sufficiently long time to complete. Hence, prayed for the grant of
bail to the applicant.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail
application and prayed for its rejection.
7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
8. It is evident from record that the deceased Dharmendra's last phone
conversation was with his father Bhagwat Singh. According to father of the
deceased, he explained to Dharmendra that he should be patient. On the phone, the
father of the deceased heard the sound of him vomiting. Then Dharmendra was
saying that Rukmani has tortured him so much that he is forced to take his life and
said that his wife Rukmani tortured him to commit suicide because of her lover
Inder Yadav and that the present applicant also instigated by the deceased by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26388
3 MCRC-47775-2025
saying that he should go and die, there is no way left for you, let us live in peace.
Tortured by this, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous
substance. It is also evident from record that the applicant was in continuous talk
with her lover Inder Yadav on phone No.7240847734 and 9993007603. In the
opinion of this Court, the aforesaid act of the present applicant come under the
offence under Section 108 of BNS.
9. The judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant are all
of the stage of quashing of FIR or of the subsequent stage. But, this matter has
come up for bail. Therefore, the aforesaid citations are not applicable at the
present stage.
10. After going through the material available in case diary and after
perusing the record, looking to the role attributable to the applicant, nature of
allegations and gravity of offence, requirement of custodial interrogation cannot
be denied. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the
applicant.
11. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed.
12. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
