[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Antar Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5570
1 MCRC-6010-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6010 of 2026
ANTAR BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Aayush Sethiya - Advocate for the applicant along with Shri Parv
Birla- Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta -GA appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
Shri Nilesh Dave, Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].
ORDER
1] They are heard. Perused the case-diary.
2] This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section
482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as she is apprehending
his arrest in connection with Crime No.19/2026 registered at Police Station
Garoth, District Mandsaur for the offence punishable under Sections 108 of
the BNS, 2023.
3] The allegation against the applicant is of her involvement in the
aforesaid case of abetment of suicide by one Dilip, who happens to be the
son-in-law of the applicant. It is alleged that the deceased/Dilip, committed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5570
2 MCRC-6010-2026
suicide by consuming poison while he had gone to the house of the
applicant.
4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the daughter of the
applicant and the deceased were married for around ten years, and since the
last five years applicant's daughter had been residing separately from the
house of the deceased, and had gone to her parental home, whereas the
deceased had come to the house of the applicant on 29.11.2025, and
thereafter some altercation, he committed suicide by consuming poison.
5] Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that since the
daughter of the applicant was residing separately from the deceased for the
last five years, thus there is no question of any abetment being made by the
applicant or by her daughter. It is further submitted that the applicant is a
woman aged 56 years, and if she is arrested, great prejudice would be caused
to her future. Thus, it is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the
applicant is not necessary, and the anticipatory bail application be allowed.
6] Counsel for the respondent/State, as also the objector, on the other
hand, have opposed the prayer.
7] However, on a query made by this Court to the respondent/State,
as also the objector, neither of them has apprised this Court as to how and
from where the poison was brought into the house of the applicant.
8] On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the record,
this Court is inclined to allow the present application as the custodial
interrogation of the applicant, under the facts and circumstances of the case
does not appear necessary.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5570
3 MCRC-6010-2026
9] Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the
applicant shall be released on bail, upon his executing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and furnishing one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer
(Investigating Officer). The applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He shall further
abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the applicant is found to be
involved in violation of any of the terms of this order, an application for
cancellation of his bail may be filed before the Trial Court itself, who shall
decide the same in accordance with law.
10] Accordingly, MCRC stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
das
