Madhya Pradesh High Court
Savitri Bai @ Chandi Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29414
1 MCRC-43632-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43632 of 2025
SAVITRI BAI @ CHANDI BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Harshwardhan Sharma, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Apoorv Joshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Ali Husain Mansuri, Advocate for the respondent [COMP].
ORDER
This first application has been filed by the applicants under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.582 of 2025 registered
at Police Station - Rajgarh, District - Rajgarh(M.P.) for offence punishable under
Sections 108, 85 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Applicants are in judicial custody since
02.09.2025.
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 applicants, in addition to the grounds mentioned in
the application, submits that the applicants are falsely implicated in the alleged
offence merely for the reason that applicant No.1 Savitri Bai @ Chandi Bai is
sister-in-law(Jaithani) and Kanchan Bai @ Kanchi Bai is sister-in-law (Nanand)
of deceased. It is alleged that Ramnarayan, Savitribai and Kanchanbai had an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29414
2 MCRC-43632-2025
altercation with deceased Parvati @ Paribai and her husband Prakash in the
evening of 10.08.2025. Thereafter, Pari Bai left her home informing her husband
that she is going to answer nature's call. Later, Pari Bai was found hanging with
the help of Sari to a tree near her house. Learned counsel contends that there was
no instigation or abetment or mensrea on the part of the applicants for unfortunate
suicide of Pari Bai. Learned counsel relied on the judgments in 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 to buttress his contentions. He further submits that the final
report has been submitted on completion of investigation. There is no likelihood
of tampering with evidence by the applicants for the reason that they are
homemakers and are not capable to influence the witnesses. Jail incarceration on
false accusation would cause hardship to the applicants and dependent family
members. They are ready to cooperate in the trial.
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 applicants.
According to the material available on case diary, Prakash, husband of
Paribai informed P.S. Rajgarh that his wife Paribai had left home around
09.00 p.m. on 10.08.2025. She did not return home. Later, Paribai was found
hanging with the help of Sari at a tree. The parents of Paribai alleged that
Ramnarayan, Kanchanbai and Savitribai use to harass Paribai over domestic
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29414
3 MCRC-43632-2025
issues and household chores. Prakssh also stated that in the evening of
10.08.2025, Ramnarayan, Savitribai and Kanchanbai had an altercation with
him and his wife Paribai and they did not permit them to enter the house. On
the same night, Pari Bai committed suicide by hanging. On such allegations,
P.S. Rajgarh registered FIR for offence punishable under Sections 108, 85
and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The applicant was arrested on 02.09.2025. They are in
custody ever since. The final report has been submitted on completion of
investigation. Further, prima facie 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 or reason for death of Paribai. The
contentions raised by the applicant has prima facie substance. The veracity
of prosecution will be determined after evidence in the trial.
As informed, the applicants Savitri Bai and Kanchan Bai are aged
around 24 years and 32 years respectively and are homemakers. They have
family responsibilities. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no
possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of any criminal antecedent,
considering the socio-economic status of the applicants, there appears to be
no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses by the
applicants. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue
incarceration of the applicants. 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 applicants on bail. Thus, the application is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29414
4 MCRC-43632-2025
allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that applicants No.1 Savitri Bai @ Chandi
B a i and No.2 Kanchan Bai @ Kanchi Bai shall be released on bail in
connection with the Crime as mentioned in first paragraph of this order, upon
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only)each with one solvent surety each of the same amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court, for compliance with the following conditions :
(For convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of
bail are also reproduced in Hindi as under):-
(1) Applicants 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) Applicants 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) 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) 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) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure,
pressurize or threaten the witness;
(4) आवेदक 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 गl ।
(5) During trial, the applicants 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 आवेदकगण धारा ३०९ दं. .सं. / ३४६
भारतीय नाग रक सुर ा सं हता, 2023 के ावधान का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन त करगे।
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 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/she had explained the
conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29414
5 MCRC-43632-2025
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
