[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivnarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6451
1 MCRC-11277-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 11 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11277 of 2026
SHIVNARAYAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Meena advocate for the applicants.
Shri Viraj Godha public prosecutor for State.
ORDER
1. This first application has been filed by applicants under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No. 30 of 2026 registered at Police Station - Akodia,
District - Shajapur (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS, 2023.
The applicants are apprehending their arrest in the matter.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants, in addition to the grounds mentioned in
the application, submits that the applicants are falsely implicated in the alleged
offence to avoid execution of sale deed in furtherance of the agreement between
accused Mahesh and deceased Kailash. Deceased Kailash had sold part of the
property to Mahesh vide registered sale deed dated 4.2.2025. He had also
transferred part of the agricultural land vide registered sale deed dated 4.7.2024 in
favour of Rohit and registered sale deed dated 21.4.2022 in favour of Manishabai,
mother of Rohit. The consideration for sale was paid and the land was mutated in
favour of purchasers, therefore, there was no dispute with regard to the sale deeds.
There is no allegation that Mahesh, Shivnarayan or Rohit threatened the deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6451
2 MCRC-11277-2026
soon before his death. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the applicants. The
custodial interrogation of the applicants is not needed in the matter. Jail
incarceration on false accusation would cause hardship to the applicants. The
applicant No.1 Shivnarayan is aged around 55 years and applicant No.2 Rohit is
aged around 31 years, they are agriculturists by profession. They are ready to
cooperate in the investigation. Therefore, applicants may be extended the benefit
of anticipatory bail.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the
ground of gravity of alleged offence. Learned counsel submits that the deceased
Kailash consumed poisonous substance and informed his wife Raja Munnibai and
son Tarun that he is harassed by Kanhaiyalal, Mahesh, Shivnarayan and Rohit for
demand of money. They have taken his land and not paid him the money. Thus,
abetment to suicide by conduct is made out. The applicants do not deserve grant
of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel refers to three criminal antecedents against
the applicant Shivnarayan and one criminal antecedent against the applicant Rohit.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant
Shivnarayan was acquitted in relation to crime No. 11/1986 and crime No.
292/2022 vide orders dated 17.01.1994 and 13.092025, the other matter relating
to crime No. 78/2008 has been compromised between the parties. The applicant
Rohit was acquitted in relation to crime No. 292/2022 passed in case No. 38/2023
vide order dated 13.09.2025. The applicants have never been convicted for any
major offence.
5. As per the accusation on record, Kailash Parmar consumed some poisonous
substance in the morning of 24.10.2025. He was taken to Arogya Hospital for
treatment. Kailash succumbed to death during treatment. The Police Station
Akodiya registered unnatural death intimation No. 32/2025. During inquest, Raja
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6451
3 MCRC-11277-2026
Munni(wife) and Tarun (son) of deceased stated that Kailash knocked the door in
the morning of 24.10.2025 and informed Raja Munni that he had consumed
celphos due to harassment of Kanhaiyalal, Mahesh, Rohit and Shiv. They are
harassing him for demand of money but Kailash did not tell why they are
demanding money. Raja Munni further stated that a day before Kanhaiyalal came
to her house and demanded money from Kailash and threatened to kill him. Tarun
also stated similar line. Tarun further added that Kailash informed him that
Kanhaiyalal, Rohit, Mahesh and Shiv took his land and they are not paying him
money. On such allegations, the Police Station Akodiya registered FIR for offence
punishable under Section 108 of The BNS 2023. The statements of witnesses were
recorded. The investigation is underway. The applicants are apprehending arrest in
the matter.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicants referring to the judgments 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, non payment or demand of money without any positive
proximate action on part of the accused showing mens-rea to abet the suicide does
not amount to abetment for suicide.
7. Prima facie. the allegation in proximity of death of Kailash relates to
demand of money by Kanhaiyalal a day before death of Kailash. The veracity of
such allegation will be determined after investigation in trial. There is no
allegation that Mahesh, Shivnarayan or Rohit directly communicated with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6451
4 MCRC-11277-2026
deceased in close proximity of his death. The investigation is underway. The
contentions advanced by applicants have prima facie substance. The veracity of
prosecution and intention of the applicants for abetment to commit suicide will be
determined after evidence in the trial.
8. Considering the age, profession and status of the applicants, there appears to
be no likelihood of fleeing from justice or involving in any criminal activity. In
absence of substantial criminal past and previous conviction for any major offence,
considering the socio-economic status of the applicants, there appears to be no
likelihood of tampering with the evidence, influencing the witness or interfering in
the investigation by the applicants. The incarceration of applicants does not
appear to be necessary for the purpose of investigation. The grant of anticipatory
bail to the applicants will not cause prejudice to free, fair and full investigation.
Considering their age, status and profession, the applicants may suffer hardship
and prejudice due to incarceration entailing social disrepute and humiliation.
Considering the overall circumstances of the case, but without commenting on
merits of the accusation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicants. Thus, the application is allowed.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant No.1 -
Shivnarayan and applicant No.2 Rohit shall be released on bail in connection with
Crime as mentioned in the first paragraph of this order, upon furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with separate
solvent surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the officer making
arrest/the Competent Court for compliance with the following conditions:(For the
convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of bail are
reproduced in Hindi as under):-
1 ) Applicants shall make themselves available for investigation as may be directed by the
Investigation Officer.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6451
5 MCRC-11277-2026
(1) vUos"k.kdrkZ iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kkuqlkj vUos"k.k gsrq vkosnd miyC/k jgs गेA
(2) Applicants shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;
(2) आवेदकगण समान कृ ित का केाई अपराध नह ं करगे या उसम स मिलत नह ं ह गे ।
(3) Applicants 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) आवेदकगण करण के त य से प रिचत कसी य को य या अ य प से लोभन, धमक
या वचन नह ं दे गा, जससे ऐसा य ऐसे त य को यायालय या पुिलस अिधकार को कट करने से
िनवा रत ह ।
(4) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure,
pressurize or threaten the witness;
(4) आवेदकगण य या अ य प से सा य के साथ छे डछाड करने का या सा ी या सा य को
बहलाने -फुसलाने, दबाव डालने या धमकाने का यास नह ं करगे ।
(5) During trial, the applicants 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) वचारण के दौरान, उप थत गवाह से पर ण के संबंध म आवेदकगण धारा ३०९ दं. .सं. / ३४६
भारतीय नाग रक सुर ा सं हता, 2023 के ावधान का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन त करगे।
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 Investigation Officer /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
