[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10451
1 MCRC-13965-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 26 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13965 of 2026
JAGDISH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Katare - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Dinesh Savita - PP for the State.
Shri Ashish Singh Jadoun - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
This is the first application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, filed by the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No.26 of 2026 registered at Police Station Mrigwas,
District Guna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS.
As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was allegedly subjected to
frequent harassment, cruelty, and physical assault by the present applicant on the
ground that the deceased did not perform household work properly. Being
distressed and fed up with such continuous harassment and ill-treatment, the
deceased is stated to have committed suicide by hanging herself.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case and has no connection with the alleged offence. The
applicant is an innocent and has never subjected the deceased to any cruelty or
harassment. It is further submitted that the marriage between the families was
performed according to local custom and no dowry was demanded or taken. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10451
2 MCRC-13965-2026
further submitted that the deceased visited the applicant's house only twice and
stayed there for a very short period, during which she was treated well and was
never harassed. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was unwilling
to marry the applicant's son and was allegedly forced into the marriage by her
parental family, who had pressured and assaulted her. The applicant had even
advised the deceased's family not to send her if she was unwilling. Learned
counsel further submits that the deceased committed suicide due to pressure from
her parental family and the applicant had no role in the incident. No specific overt
act has been attributed to the applicant and there is no direct or indirect evidence
against her. It is further submitted that co-accused Mehtab Bai has already been
granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The applicant is ready and
willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions that may be
imposed by this Court. Under these circumstances and on the ground of parity,
anticipatory bail is sought.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the counsel for
the complainant opposed the application and prayed for its rejection looking to the
nature and gravity of offence.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the
fact that the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the
applicant fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of
anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this Court, without commenting
on the merits of the case, is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be
extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on
anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10451
3 MCRC-13965-2026
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the applicant:-
i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and
conditions of the bond executed by her;
ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as
the case may be;
iii) The applicant will not indulge herself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
vi) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments
during the trial;
v) The applicant will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case
may be.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Rashid
