[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sourabh Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17275
1 MCRC-8359-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8359 of 2026
SOURABH PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sukhendra Singh - Advocate for the applicant through V.C.
Shri Aditya Gupta - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the third application filed on behalf of applicant under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/439 of Cr.P.C., for
grant of regular bail. Applicant has been arrested relating to Crime No
335/2024 registered at P.S. Panagar, District Jabalpur for offences under
sections 304-B, 498-A/34 of IPC & U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. His
first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
27.11.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 46787/2024 and second application was
dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.04.2025 in M.Cr.C. No.8464/2025.
2. As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is
that deceased committed suicide due to cruelty, demand of dowry and
harassment done by the applicant husband.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the father-in-
law of the deceased is considered for bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court as the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17275
2 MCRC-8359-2026
material witnesses have already been examined and applicant being husband
is also behind bars since 11.03.2024, therefore, his case for grant of bail may
also be considered. He has further submitted that similar nature of allegations
are levelled against the present applicant as well as father-in-law and looking
to the material available on record, the case of the applicant is required to be
considered appropriately by considering the application for bail as he is
behind bars since more than two years. It is further submitted that there are
no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application by saying
that the allegations levelled in the FIR are serious in nature and the case of
father-in-law from every angle is different than that of the present
applicant. More particularly, considering the fact that in the present case, the
offences are registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34 of IPC and U/s 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the present applicant and, therefore,
the case of the applicant, who is husband cannot be equated with the case of
father-in-law of deceased, who is otherwise a aged person. He has further
submitted that it also transpires from the P.M. report that there are certain
scratch marks and also ligature marks found on the neck of the deceased
which are also relevant for consideration of the allegations made in the FIR,
which prima facie connects the present applicant in the alleged offence. It is
submitted that the presumption is always available with the prosecution
under the law that such untoward incident has happened within seven years
of marriage therefore, he has submitted that the bail application deserved to
be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17275
3 MCRC-8359-2026
5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the
case diary.
6. From the FIR, it transpires that there is specific allegation against
the present applicant as well as other members of the family. It also
transpires that offence is registered under Section 304-B, 498-A, 34 of IPC
and also under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant.
It also transpires that though the father-in-law of deceased is considered for
the bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court by considering the fact that all material
witnesses are examined. Considering the case of present applicant who is
husband and considering the allegations levelled against the present applicant
and the probability of the role which might have caused by him cannot be
ruled out at this juncture. More over, considering the fact that the trial is
going on and also considering the fact that the presumption is always
available with the prosecution under the law, as the alleged untoward
incident occurred within seven years of marriage, further taking into account
the P.M. report, prima facie, I am of the view that Court should not grant any
relief in favour of the applicant. No ground for release of the applicant is
made out. Therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. is dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
b
