[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4652
1 MCRC-4876-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4876 of 2026
BHAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This is the first application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory
bail in connection with Crime No.239 of 2025 registered at Police Station
Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2),
85, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.10.2025, on the
information given by informant Bhan Singh (present applicant) regarding the
death of deceased Vandana Jatav due to consumption of a Sulphara tablet, a
Merg intimation bearing No. 49/2025 was registered at Police Station Lahar
under Section 194 BNSS. As the deceased was a newly married woman, a
Merg inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Lahar.
During the Merg inquiry, statements of the deceased's brother Kuldeep
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4652
2 MCRC-4876-2026
Chansolia and sister-in-law Ranjana Chansolia were recorded. In their
statements, they stated that the marriage of deceased Vandana was
solemnized on 22.02.2023 with Bhan Singh (present applicant) after giving
dowry articles including cash amounting to a total of Rs.2,00,000/-. After the
marriage, the deceased Vandana was subjected to cruelty and harassment by
her husband Bhan Singh(present applicant), brother-in-law Santosh, and
sister-in-law Kalawati for not fulfilling the demand of a Splendor motorcycle
as dowry. Due to the said harassment, on 18.10.2025, Vandana consumed
poisonous substance and committed suicide. During the Merg inquiry, the
post-mortem report also revealed that the cause of death of the deceased was
respiratory failure due to consumption of poisonous substance. After
completion of the Merg inquiry, a First Information Report was registered at
Police Station Lahar and Crime No. 239/2025 was registered under Sections
80(2), 85, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of vague,
general, and omnibus allegations. Even if the entire prosecution story is
accepted at its face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are
not made out against the applicant, particularly the mandatory requirement of
cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry soon before the death of the
deceased. It is further submitted that the marriage between the applicant and
the deceased Vandana was solemnized on 22.02.2023 and during the entire
subsistence of the matrimonial relationship, no complaint whatsoever was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4652
3 MCRC-4876-2026
made by the deceased or by any of her family members before any police
authority, women's cell, Panchayat, or other forum alleging demand of
dowry or cruelty by the applicant. The complete absence of any prior
complaint clearly demolishes the prosecution version and shows that the
allegations have been levelled as an afterthought only after the unfortunate
death of the deceased. It is further submitted that the statements of the
deceased's brother and sister-in-law recorded during the Merg inquiry are
highly interested and partisan in nature and are conspicuously silent on any
specific incident, date, or time of alleged cruelty. The allegations regarding
demand of a Splendor motorcycle are bald, unsubstantiated, and unsupported
by any independent witness or contemporaneous document. Such vague
allegations, without particulars, are insufficient to attract the penal provisions
invoked against the applicant. It is also submitted that as per the post-mortem
report, the cause of death of the deceased was respiratory failure due to
consumption of poisonous substance. The post-mortem report does not
disclose any external injuries, marks of violence, or signs of physical assault
on the body of the deceased. More importantly, there is nothing in the
medical evidence to indicate that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty
or harassment soon before her death, which is a mandatory statutory
requirement for invoking the presumption under dowry-related offences. In
the absence of evidence of "soon before death" cruelty, the entire prosecution
case becomes legally unsustainable. It is further submitted that there is no
suicide note on record and no material to show instigation, intentional aid, or
active participation on the part of the applicant in the alleged act of suicide.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4652
4 MCRC-4876-2026
Mere matrimonial discord or unsubstantiated allegations of dowry demand,
even if assumed, do not ipso facto constitute abetment of suicide. The
applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation and there is no
allegation that he has attempted to abscond or influence witnesses. He is a
permanent resident of District Bhind and has deep roots in society, and
therefore there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice. Applicant
undertakes to cooperate in investigation/trial. He is ready to abide by all the
terms and condition as imposed by this Court. Under these grounds, counsel
prayed for anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection by contending that looking to the
nature and gravity of offence, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.
Considering the overall facts and cirrcumstances of the case, as well as
the fact that the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of
the applicant fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit
of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this Court, without
commenting on the merits of the case, is of the opinion that the applicant
deserves to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this
application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant
shall be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to
compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4652
5 MCRC-4876-2026
conditions of the bond executed by him;
ii) The applicant will cooperate in the
investigation/trial, as the case may be;
iii) The applicant will not indulge herself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case
may be;
vi) The applicant will not seek unnecessary
adjournments during the trial;
v) The applicant will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case
may be.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
