High CourtsSingle Bench

Mahaveer Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 4 December 2025 · Citation: (2025) 12 MP CK 1966

HON’BLE JUDGES
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 3(5), 108
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 56186 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

14 paragraphs · 519 words

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

The applicant has filed this First bail application under Section 482 of BNSS/438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.244/2025 registered at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 108, 3 (5) of BNS.

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

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 ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, anticipatory bail is sought.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that 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/- (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 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv) 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.