[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ozefa Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2877
1 MCRC-3549-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 29 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3549 of 2026
OZEFA KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Ritu Raj Bhatnagar - Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].
ORDER
This first application has been filed by applicant under 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with
Crime No. 960/2025 registered at Police Station- Industrial Area, District- Ratlam
(M.P.) for offence punishable under Section(s) 108 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The
applicant is apprehending his arrest in the matter.
Heard the arguments.
Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and
the relevant material on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in
the application, submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged
offence merely for the reason that he is the husband of Mehak(deceased). Learned
counsel further submits that applicant was married to Mehak on 29.11.2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2877
2 MCRC-3549-2026
concealing the fact of her previous relationship with Sufiyan. Sufiyan followed
and harassed Mehak. Therefore, she had consumed poisonous substance. The
alleged offence is not committed by the applicant. The custodial interrogation of
the applicant is not needed in the matter. Jail incarceration on false accusation
would cause hardship to the young applicant. He is ready to co-operate in
investigation and the trial. Therefore, applicant be extended the benefit of
anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State ably assisted by learned counsel for
the objector opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence
and submits that Mehak was married to the petitioner on 29.11.2025. She
consumed insecticide Celphos on 17.12.2025. Sufiyan was harassing Mehak. But,
Ozefa Khan (applicant) also suspected relationship of Mehak with Sufiyan and
started harassing her. Mehak called her mother just before consuming Celphos on
phone and complained against the applicant. Therefore, the alleged offence is
prima-facie made out. Learned counsel refers to 04 criminal antecedents reported
against the applicant, as mentioned in the case diary.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was
acquitted in two matters. The trial of one of the matter relating to POCSO Act was
stayed by the Supreme Court. Another matter is pending for trial. Applicant has
never been convicted for any offence.
As per the accusation on case diary, Mehak aged 22 years was married to
applicant Ozaifa alias Ozair on 29.11.2025. She consumed insecticide Celphos on
17.12.2025. She succumbed to death during treatment. Parents and relatives of
deceased Mehak alleged that Sufiyan was harassing Mehak for relationship.
Ozefa, husband of Mehak also suspected the character of Mehak and quarreled
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2877
3 MCRC-3549-2026
with her. On 17.12.2025, Mehak and Ozefa were returning from a birthday party at
Baroda. On the way, Mehak called her mother while she was traveling with Ozefa
and informed her that Ozefa is quarreling with her suspecting her character, Ozefa
may kill her. Ozefa also said on phone that he will not permit Mehak to have
relations with anybody else. After some time, she received information that Mehak
had consumed poison. The applicant was quarreling with the deceased when she
consumed celphos. The material on record prima-facie show complicity of the
applicant in the alleged offence.
7. The case diary further reveals that the applicant is absconding since the date
of incident. A proclamation u/S 84 of BNSS, 2023 has been published in the local
newspapers under the order of JMFC, Ratlam. The applicant did not cooperate in
the investigation.
8. Considering the alleged incident, conduct of applicant and necessity of
custodial interrogation of the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the applicant does not deserve benefit of rare and exceptional relief of anticipatory
bail.
9. Consequently, the present bail application filed u/S 482 of BNSS,2023 is
hereby dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
