Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30405
1 MCRC-43137-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43137 of 2025
ROHIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri C.L.Yadav - Senior Advocate with Shri Shubham Dharwa, learned
counsel for the applicant.
Shri Tarun Pagare - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].
ORDER
This first application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail in connection
with Crime No. 339/2025 registered at Police Station Industrial Area Ratlam,
District Ratlam (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 108, 85 and 3(5).
Applicant is in judicial custody since 27.05.2025.
Heard the arguments.
Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and
the relevant material on record.
Learned Counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds mentioned in the
application, submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged
offence for the reason that he is husband of the deceased Sheetal. Sheetal was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30405
2 MCRC-43137-2025
married to Rohit on 25.11.2017. She died by hanging at her matrimonial home in
the afternoon of 18.04.2025. The parents of Sheetal, father - Anokhilal, and
mother- Parvatibai were present at the time of Panchanama and final rites.
Anokhilal, father of deceased and Sanjay, brother of deceased did not allege any
misdeed against the applicant in their initial statement recorded on 23.04.2025,
rather, they have stated that on previous day before her death, i.e. 17.04.2025,
Sheetal had called them. She was sounding happy. Learned counsel submits that
the material on record reveals that Sheetal was insisting for purchase of scooty.
When her husband Rohit declined due to financial constraint, Sheetal had
committed suicide. There was no instigation or abetment on the part of the
applicant Rohit for suicide by Sheetal. Learned counsel referring to judgment of
Hon'ble 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 of Sheetal. Co-accused Chanda
Bai has been extended benefit of regular bail vide order dated 02.09.2025 passed
in M.Cr.C. no. 35777/2025. The final report has been submitted. Jail
incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant and his minor daughter.
Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30405
3 MCRC-43137-2025
However, after going through the case diary, he fairly states that no criminal
antecedent is reported against the applicant.
According to the material on the case diary, Sheetal committed suicide by
hanging at her matrimonial home on 18.04.2025. The applicant Rohit is the
husband of Sheetal. Initially, the relatives of deceased did not make any allegation
against the applicant, however, in their supplementary statement recorded after
almost two months, they alleged that Sheetal was harassed by her husband Rohit
and mother-in-law Chandabai over demand of money. The contention raised by
applicant have prima-facie substance. T h e veracity of prosecution will be
determined after evidence in the trial.
As informed, the applicant is aged around 29 years and runs M.P. Online
Kiosk. He has responsibility of minor daughter and aged parents. Considering
these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence
of any criminal antecedent, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with
evidence or influencing the witnesses by the applicant. There appears to be no
compelling reason to continue incarceration of the applicant. However, the
observations, herein-above, are recorded for present application only.
Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of the case, in the
light of aforestated facts, but without commenting on the merits, this Court is
inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the application is allowed
Accordingly, it is directed that applicant- Rohit shall be released on bail in
connection with Crime, as mentioned in first paragraph of this order, upon
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30405
4 MCRC-43137-2025
compliance with the following conditions : (For convenience of understanding
by accused and surety, the conditions of bail are also reproduced in Hindi
asunder):-
(1) Applicant shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the
concerned court;
(1) आवेदक संबंिधत यायालय के िनदशानुसार सुनवाई क येक ितिथ पर उप थत रहे गा ।
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;
(2) आवेदक समान कृ ित का केाई अपराध नह ं करे गा या उसम स मिलत नह ं होगा ।
(3) Applicant 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) आवेदक करण के त य से प रिचत कसी य को य या अ य प से लोभन, धमक या
वचन नह ं दे गा, जससे ऐसा य ऐसे त य को यायालय या पुिलस अिधकार को कट करने से
िनवा रत हो ।
(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure,
pressurize or threaten the witness;
(4) आवदे क य या अ य प से सा य के साथ छे डछाड करने का या सा ी या सा य को बहलाने-
फुसलाने, दबाव डालने या धमकाने का यास नह ं करे गा ।
(5) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of Section 309 of
Cr.P.C./346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding examination of
witnesses in attendance;
(5) वचारण के दौरान, उप थत गवाह से पर ण के संबंध म आवेदक धारा ३०९ दं . .सं./ ३४६ भारतीय
नाग रक सुर ा सं हता, 2023 के ावधान का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन त करे गा ।
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 of this order.
The 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.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
