[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mayabai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:628
1 MCRC-60029-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 60029 of 2025
MAYABAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Aayush Pandey advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Drishti Rawal public prosecutor for State.
ORDER
1. This first bail application has been filed by applicant under Section 439
of Cr.P.C./ 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular
bail in connection with Crime No. 535/2025 registered at Police Station- Bilpank
District- Ratlam (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the
BNS, 2023. Applicant is in judicial custody since 19.09.2025.
2. Heard the arguments.
3. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary
and the relevant material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds mentioned
in the application submits that the applicant is implicated in the alleged offence
merely on suspicion. Deceased Jeevan Das suspected illicit relations of his
wife/Mayabai (applicant) with accused Karu. Jeevan Das was aggrieved of his
wife and committed suicide due to her conduct. There is no allegation that the
applicant - Mayabai ever communicated with Jeevan Das in close proximity of his
death. The allegations of instigation and goading were made firstly after five days
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:628
2 MCRC-60029-2025
of death of Jeevan after premeditation and consultation. No offence, as alleged, is
committed by the applicant. Learned counsel referring to judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in
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
filed on completion of investigation. Applicant has clean past with family roots.
There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence by the applicant for the reason
that she is not capable of influencing the prosecution witness. Jail incarceration is
causing hardship to the applicant. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.
5. 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,
she fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant.
6. According to the material available on case diary, Jeevan Das Bairagi
was married to Maya Bai. Maya Bai left her matrimonial home alongwith her
daughters and went missing. Jeevan Das lodged missing report on 05.09.2025.
Jeevan Das was distressed and suspected illicit relations of his wife Maya Bai with
Karu alias Aasharam. There was matrimonial discord between Maya Bai and
Jeevan Das. Maya Bai had goaded Jeevan Das to die during quarrel with him.
Jeevan Das hanged himself on 13.09.2025. Devendra, brother of the deceased
Jeevan Das, submitted a written complaint on 18.09.2025 and alleged that Maya
Bai and Karu alias Aasharam are responsible for suicide of his brother. On such
allegations, the Police Station Bilpank registered FIR for offence punishable u/S
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:628
3 MCRC-60029-2025
108 and 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 against Maya Bai and Karu
alias Aasharam. Applicant was arrested on 19.09.2025. She is in custody ever
since. The material on record prima-facie does not reveal any communication of
applicant with deceased Jeevan Das in close proximity of his death. The
contentions advanced by the applicant have prima facie merit and cannot be
dismissed as manifestly baseless.
7. As informed, the applicant is aged around 35 years. She is homemaker
by profession and mother of minor children. Considering these aspects, there
appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of any criminal
antecedents, considering the socio-economic status of the applicant, there appears
to be no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses by the
applicant. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue incarceration of
the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are recorded for present
application only.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant- Mayabai shall be released on
bail in connection with 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 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 jgssxhA
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;
(2) vkosnd leku izd`fr dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha djssxh ;k mlesa lfEefyr ugha gkssxh A
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:628
4 MCRC-60029-2025
(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 djssxh A
(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 djssxh A
10. 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 merit,
cancellation of bail without any impediment from this order.
11. 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
BDJ
