[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reema Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8722
1 MCRC-12829-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12829 of 2026
REEMA BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Yadav - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This first bail application has been filed by applicant under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No. 216/2024 registered at Police Station- Boda
District- Rajgarh (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section(s) 296, 331(5),
115(2), 324(4), 351(3), 3(5) & 92 of BNS, 2023. Applicant is apprehending
her arrest in the matter.
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, contends that there is dispute between the
parties regarding custody of Sukvinder, minor Son of Mangilal and Reema.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8722
2 MCRC-12829-2026
Mangilal had expired and Reema had married elsewhere. Therefore,
Sukhvinder was residing with his maternal uncle - Sukhbir. The altercation
over custody of Sukhvinder between rival contenders aggravated into
physical scuffle. Initially, the allegation against the applicant was assaulting
Sukbir by pelting stone at him. Later, Tanisha alleged that Reema in
association with other accused assaulted her. She suffered abortion. There
was no intention to cause abortion. Applicant was not aware of two month,s
pregnancy of Tanisha. Therefore, offence punishable u/S 92 of BNS, 2023 is
not made out. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not needed in the
matter. Jail incarceration on false accusation would cause hardship to the
applicant. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation. As informed,
applicant is aged around 35 years and is a home maker by profession.
Therefore, applicant be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail 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 accusation on case diary, Tanisha reported to P.S.
Boda that on 08.10.2024, around 4:00 in the evening , her brother-in-law
Rajendra, Bhagwan Singh, Basant and Harshit came to her house and abused
her in filthy language. They insisted to take Sukhvinder. But she declined.
Meanwhile, Reema(applicant), Shankar, Yogita and Anshu also arrived.
They tried to take Sukhvinder. When she intervened, Harshit assaulted her
with farsi on left side of her head. Her husband - Sukbir and mother-in-law
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8722
3 MCRC-12829-2026
Bindiya intervened. Reema assaulted Sukhbir with stone on his thigh.
Bhagwan Singh assaulted Bindiya with wooden stick. Rajendra assaulted
Sukhvinder with farsi on his head. Basant, Shankar, Yogita and Anshu pelted
stone at her house due to which windows and motorcycle were damaged.
On such allegations, P.S. Boda registered FIR for offence punishable u/S
296, 331(5),115(2), 351(3), 324(4) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Injured were
forwarded for medico-legal examination. Tanisha complained of abdominal
pain and pregnancy. She was referred for treatment to Higher Centre. She
was admitted at Lotus Hospital and suffered abortion. Accordingly,
prosecution for offence punishable under Section 92 of BNS, 2023 was
added. The history of Lotus hospital reveals that Tanisha had informed fall at
home during family quarrel. Prima facie, it was a family quarrel regarding
custody of minor - Sukhvinder. The contentions advanced by learned counsel
for the applicant has prima-facie substance. The veracity of the prosecution
and complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence will be considered on
merit after evidence.
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 applicants. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8722
4 MCRC-12829-2026
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 of applicant -
Reema Bai shall be released on bail in connection with Crime number 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) with one
solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Officer making
arrest, 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) Applicant shall make herself 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) आवे दका 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) आवे दका 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) आवे दका 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 आवे दका धारा ३०९
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8722
5 MCRC-12829-2026
दं . .सं./ ३४६ भारतीय नाग रक सुर ा सं हता, 2023 के ावधान का उिचत
अनुपालन सुिन त djsxh ।
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/she had explained the conditions to the concerned accused or the
surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
