High CourtsSingle Bench

Bholu Mandeliya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 29 December 2025 · Citation: (2025) 12 MP CK 1839

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amit Seth, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 3(5), 108
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 58824 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 541 words

Amit Seth, J

1.

The applicant has filed the first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.244/2025 registered at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the commission of offence under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS.

2.

The allegation against the present applicant is that due to harassment caused by him, the deceased committed suicide.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific or overt act has been attributed to him which may constitute the alleged offence. It is further submitted that for an offence under Section 108 of BNS, it is essential that there exists a clear intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that his action would drive the deceased to commit suicide. In the present matter, the applicant had no such intention, and there is no evidence to show that he acted in a manner that could have contributed to the alleged act of suicide. The applicant is permanent resident of District Gwalior and there is no likelihood of her absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is in jail since 10.12.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the case of the present applicant is akin to the case of co-accused, namely, Mukul Kumar, who has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 55928 of 2025, therefore, claiming parity, it is prayed that the present application be allowed and benefit of bail be also granted to the applicant.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and prays for rejection of the bail application.

6.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7.

Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court.

8 . This order will remain operative 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 him;

ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

iii) The applicant will not indulge himself 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;

iv) The applicant will not commit any other offence in future. In case offence of same nature is repeated, this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled;

v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

9.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

10.

Certified copy as per rules.