[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaiyaram Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11539
1 MCRC-3954-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3954 of 2026
BHAIYARAM YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Shikha Baghel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail
relating to FIR/Crime No.755/2025 registered at Police Station Banda,
District Sagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 108 of the
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is in jail since 06.01.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no case of
abetment to suicide is made out against the applicant. He has relied on the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Velladurai vs State reported in
(2021) 4 Crimes 334 , in which the Apex Court has held that conviction for
offence punishable under Section 306 requires the proof of instigation or
action leading to suicide. Mere harassment is insufficient without positive
action proximate to suicide. Instigation can be inferred, if circumstances
created left no other option but suicide. When the accused consumed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11539
2 MCRC-3954-2026
pesticide along with deceased wife after a quarrel, no inference can be drawn
that the applicant has committed the offence of abetment to suicide.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the order of this
Court passed in Cr.R.No.1601/2016 (Khoob Singh Lodhi vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh) dated 07.11.2016, in which, it is held that mere beating by
the accused to the deceased does not constitute offence of abetment to
suicide. On that basis, it has submitted that if any quarrel has taken place and
this applicant has assaulted the deceased, on the same day, it could not be
inferred that the applicant has abetted to suicide, hence, the applicant be
enlarged on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and
has submitted that as per the post-mortem report, the injury was found in the
neck area of the victim and the abrasions were also found. The applicant has
assaulted the victim and due to that the victim being harassed committed
suicide and this fact has been further supported by the statement of Baijnath
Yadav, hence, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Heard the parties and perused the case diary.
6. In this case, it is admitted fact that the deceased died due to
consumption of the pesticide or some poisonous substance and if any dispute
has taken place and the applicant has assaulted the deceased, it could not be
inferred that the applicant was having an intention to instigate or abet the
victim for committing suicide.
7. Looking to the factual aspects of the case coupled with the facts that
trial will take time to be concluded, this Court deems it appropriate to allow
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11539
3 MCRC-3954-2026
the application. Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the application is allowed.
8. It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all
such dates as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during pendency of
trial.
9. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Section 480(3) of BNSS.
10. Accordingly, Misc. Criminal Case stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
VB*
