Criminal Law

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE ON THE 1st OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55265 of 2025 U … Applicant Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh Appearance: Shri Amit Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri S, Public Prosecutor for the State.   The present first application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. xxx of 2025 registered at Police Station Dehat, District Bhind (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased was married to the present applicant in the year 2010 according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born. For several years, the matrimonial life of the parties continued normally, however, with the passage of time, disputes allegedly arose between them on account of strained relations, incompatibility, and allegations levelled by the complainant side regarding the applicant’s association with another woman. It is alleged that due to these disputes, frequent quarrels took place between the husband and wife. The prosecution further alleges that the deceased felt neglected and mentally harassed. According to the complainant, the applicant had stopped maintaining cordial relations with the deceased and had expressed unwillingness to continue the matrimonial relationship. It is further alleged that the applicant initiated proceedings for dissolution of marriage before the competent Family Court. According to the prosecution, the deceased was emotionally disturbed due to the aforesaid circumstances. It is further alleged that family elders and local Panchayat members attempted reconciliation between the parties, but the dispute could not be resolved. Thereafter, on 21.09.2025, the deceased was found hanging in a room of the matrimonial house and thus committed suicide. On the basis of merg inquiry, statements of witnesses, and allegations made by the complainant side, the present crime was registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging abetment of suicide. Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amit Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate, submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to emotional pressure and social resentment arising after the unfortunate incident. It was vehemently contended that the entire prosecution story, even if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the necessary ingredients required to constitute an offence of abetment of suicide. Learned counsel submitted that to attract Section 108 of BNS, there must be clear mens rea, direct instigation, active participation, or intentional aid in the commission of suicide. In the present case, no such material exists. There is no allegation of any specific act immediately preceding the incident that could be construed as incitement or provocation by the applicant. It was further argued by Shri Amit Singh Raghuvanshi that matrimonial disputes, differences in temperament, domestic quarrels, or even pendency of divorce proceedings, though unfortunate, cannot automatically be converted into a criminal charge of abetment of suicide unless there is cogent and proximate evidence showing direct involvement of the accused. Learned counsel further submitted that the filing of a divorce petition before the Family Court was a lawful remedy available to the applicant under personal law and the same cannot be treated as an illegal act or evidence of criminal intent. It was argued that exercising a legal remedy cannot be equated with instigation to commit suicide. It was also contended that the prosecution case is based largely on assumptions, sentiments, and generalized allegations made after the death of the deceased. No independent witness has stated any overt act of instigation by the applicant. No suicide note has been recovered from the place of incident. There is also no electronic evidence, message, or communication showing that the applicant ever compelled the deceased to take the extreme step. Learned counsel Shri Amit Singh Raghuvanshi further submitted that the applicant has clean antecedents, is a permanent resident of the district, and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. The applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. It was next argued that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, as the case rests primarily on documentary material and witness statements already available with the prosecution. Arrest of the applicant at this stage would serve no fruitful purpose except causing humiliation and unnecessary curtailment of his liberty. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts that mere harassment, strained matrimonial relations, or emotional incompatibility, in the absence of direct instigation or active aid, do not constitute abetment of suicide. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for rejection of the same. It was submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. According to the prosecution, the conduct of the applicant had caused immense mental cruelty to the deceased, who was left with no option but to commit suicide. It was argued that the applicant had distanced himself from the deceased, neglected family responsibilities, and insisted upon separation. Such continuous conduct, according to the State, had a direct bearing on the fragile mental condition of the deceased. It was therefore submitted that a thorough custodial interrogation may be necessary for fair investigation. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary as well as material available on record. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, a detailed appreciation of evidence is not required. At the same time, the Court is required to examine whether prima facie custodial interrogation is necessary, whether the accusations disclose a case warranting arrest, and whether the applicant is likely to misuse liberty. Upon consideration of the material available, it appears that the allegations primarily arise