[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu Songara vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10216
1 MCRC-16908-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16908 of 2026
SONU SONGARA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anand Raj Pandey - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
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. 131/2024 registered at Police Station-
Chimanganj Mandi, District Ujjain (M.P.) for offence punishable under
Sections 306 & 34 of IPC. Applicant is in judicial custody since 21.01.2026.
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 merely on suspicion by family members of
deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10216
2 MCRC-16908-2026
applicant due to dismay, anger and frustration over untimely death of Raj
Kumar. There is no dying declaration of Rajkumar. The family members
suspected that due to illicit relations of applicant with Maya, her husband Raj
Kumar had committed suicide. Learned counsel referring to the judgment of
the Supreme Court in cases of Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya Vs. State
of Gujarat reported in (2015) 11 SCC 753 , Arjunan Vs. State reported in
(2019) 3 SCC 315, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported
i n 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. The final report has been submitted on completion of
investigation. There is no history of evading process of law. There is no
likelihood of tampering with evidence by the applicant. The trial would take
time to conclude. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant.
Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial. Co-accused Maya has been
extended benefit of bail by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2026 passed in
M.Cr.C. No. 12729/2026.The alleged offence is not heinous or brutal in
nature affecting society at large.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10216
3 MCRC-16908-2026
applicant. Applicant is aged 36 years. He is a vegetable vendor by
profession.
As per the accusation on case diary, Raj Kumar s/o Moolchand
committed suicide by hanging at his home. The Police Station Chimanganj
Mandi registered unnatural death intimation No. 31 of 2023. The family
members of deceased Raj Kumar alleged that Maya wife of Raj Kumar had
illicit relations with Sonu Songara(applicant). Maya used to quarrel with Raj
Kumar. They suspected that Raj Kumar might have committed suicide due to
behavior and conduct of his wife Maya. On such allegations, the Police
Station, Chimanganj Mandi registered FIR for offence punishable under
Section 306 and 34 of IPC against Maya and Sonu Songara. The applicant
was arrested on 21.01.2026. He is in custody ever since. The final report has
been submitted on completion of investigation. The trial would take time to
conclude. The contentions advanced by the applicant have prima-facie merit
and cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless. The veracity of the
prosecution and complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence will be
considered after evidence in trial.
As informed, the applicant has the responsibility of dependent
family. 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 applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of
recidivism or tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses by the
applicant. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10216
4 MCRC-16908-2026
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 - Sonu Songara shall
b e 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety 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) Applicant shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the concerned court;
(1) vkosnd lacaf/kr U;k;ky; ds funZs'kkuqlkj lquokbZ dh izR;sd frfFk ij mifLFkr jgsxkA
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;
(2) vkosnd leku izd`fr dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha djsxk ;k mlesa lfEefyr ugha gksxkA
(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 izdzj.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 djsxkA
(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) fopkj.k ds nkSjku] mifLFkr xokgksa ls ijh{k.k ds laca/k esa vkosnd /kkjk 309 na-iz-la- ds izko/kkuksa dk mfpr
vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djsxkA
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:10216
5 MCRC-16908-2026
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.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
