Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tanjila Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30849
1 MCRC-48279-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 27 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48279 of 2025
TANJILA KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Vyas advocate for the applicant.
Shri Tarun Pagare public prosecutor for State.
Shri Harsh Khoware advocate for objector.
ORDER
This first application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 598/2025
registered at Police Station - Chimanganj Mandi, District - Ujjain (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.
Learned counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds mentioned in the
application submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence.
The applicant was married to Tanveer 14 years ago. They were blessed with four
children. There was matrimonial discord between the applicant and her husband
Tanveer. Tanveer used to manhandled and ill-treat the applicant. The applicant has
made various complaint against Tanveer. Learned counsel referring to FIR at
crime No. 29/2025, registered at P.S. Mahakal, District Ujjain contends that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30849
2 MCRC-48279-2025
Tanveer had molested his own daughter, therefore, the applicant lodged FIR
against Tanveer. Tanveer was arrested. After release on bail, Tanveer manhandled
the applicant, therefore, she was residing at her matrimonial home. Tanveer died
at rented premises at Mangal Nagar, P.S. Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain. No offence,
as alleged, is committed by the applicant. 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. Applicant enjoys good character and social standing. The custodial
interrogation of the applicant is not needed in the matter. Jail incarceration on
false accusation would cause hardship to the applicant and dependent children.
She is ready to cooperate in investigation. Therefore, applicant may be extended
the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State, ably assisted by learned counsel for
the objector, opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence.
However, after going through the case diary, he fairly states that no criminal
antecedent is reported against the applicant.
According to the material available on case diary, Tanveer S/o Sattar Khan
committed suicide by hanging at the rented premises in Mangal Nagar, Ujjain on
14.07.2025. Tanveer recorded video and forwarded to his sister Rubina on
whatsapp, alleging that he is committing suicide due to harassment of his wife
Tanjila, her lover Sonu and her mother Shakila. The video was recovered at the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30849
3 MCRC-48279-2025
instance of Rubina. The family members of deceased alleged that Tanjila and
Shakila were harassing Tanveer by making false complaints. Therefore, Tanveer
had committed suicide by hanging. On such allegations, P.S. Chimanganj Mandi
registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 108, 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against Tanjila, Sonu and Shakila. The investigation is
underway. The statements on record show that the applicant was residing at her
matrimonial home after matrimonial discord with the deceased. The deceased died
at a rented premises. There is no allegation that in close proximity of death of the
deceased, the applicant had communication with him. The veracity of prosecution
will be determined after evidence in the trial.
As informed, applicant is aged 35 years. She is a homemaker and mother of
four minor children. Considering the age, profession and status of the applicant,
there appears to be no likelihood of fleeing from justice or involving in any
criminal activity. In absence of criminal antecedents, considering the socio-
economic status of the applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering
with the evidence, influencing the witness or interfering in the investigation by the
applicant. The incarceration of applicant does not appear to be necessary for the
purpose of investigation. The grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant will not
cause prejudice to free, fair and full investigation. Considering her 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 applicant. Thus, the
application is allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant-Tanjila Khan
shall be released on bail in connection with Crime as mentioned in the first
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30849
4 MCRC-48279-2025
paragraph of this order, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) 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 ) Applicant shall make himself 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 vkosnd miyC/k jgs xhA
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;
(2) vkosnd leku izd`fr dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha djsxh ;k mlesa lfEefyr ugha gksxhA
(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) vkosnd izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh O;fDr dks izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls izyksHku] /kedh ;k opu ugha nsxh] ftlls ,slk
O;fDr ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks izdV djus ls fuokfjr gksA
(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure, pressurize or
threaten the witness;
(4) vkosnd 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 djsxhA
(5) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C/346 of
the BNSS. 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 xh ।
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
