High CourtsSingle Bench

Mamta Bai Banjara vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 13 January 2026 · Citation: (2026) 01 MP CK 1740

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 3(5), 108 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 107
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1459 Of 2026
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 · 516 words

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J

1.

This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.350/2025 registered at Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha for offence under Sections 108 & 3(5) of BNS.

2.

The allegation against the present applicant is that she created some situations and compelled the deceased to commit suicide by consuming some poisonous substances. Accordingly, offence has been registered.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. She is in custody since 28.12.2025. The applicant has no direct or indirect involvement in the aforesaid incident. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. No injuries are stated to have been sustained by the deceased. Any act of the present applicant, does not come under the definition of abetment to suicide under Section 107 of the IPC. Therefore, no case is made out against the present applicant. The applicant is having no criminal antecedents. Any act of the applicant does not come under the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS also. Custodial interrogation is not required. The applicant is a permanent resident of District - Raisen (M.P) and there is no possibility of her absconsion and tampering with the prosecution evidence. The trial will take sufficiently long time to complete. Hence, prayed for the grant of bail to the applicant.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection by submitting that there are specific allegations against the applicant.

5.

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

6.

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

7.

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/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/her from disclosing such acts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv) The applicant will not commit any other offence or will not repeat the offence in future.

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.

8.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

9.

Certified copy as per rules.