Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukeh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11355
1 MCRC-17100-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 30 th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17100 of 2025
MUKEH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Satish Tomar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Vinod Thakur GA for the State.
Shri Ahmad Darbari - Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].
ORDER
1. This first application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of
Bharitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection
with Crime No. 63/2025 registered at Police Station- Betma, District Indore,
(M.P.) for offence punishable under Section(s) 108(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. As per the case of prosecution, Rajesh consumed some poisonous substance
on 05.02.2025. He was taken to local hospital and, thereafter, to Choitram
hospital, Indore. The medical officer after checking Rajesh informed that he had
expired. PS. Betma registered unnatural death intimation. The viscera of Rajesh
was preserved for chemical analysis during postmortem examination. In the
inquest, it was revealed that Rajesh was involved in a land dispute with Chhittar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 01-05-2025
10:34:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11355
2 MCRC-17100-2025
Patel. Chhittar Patel and his family members were not allowing Rajesh to take
possession of the land purchased by him. The women family members of
Chhittarsingh caused interference in revenue survey of the land. There was quarrel
between the contesting parties. Both the parties lodged counter FIR. Rajesh was
apprehended and sent to jail. After release from jail, Chhittar Patel and his family
members were pressuring him for compromise. Rajesh was distressed over the
land dispute and inaction on part of police authorities. The mobile phone of Rajesh
was recovered which contained a video wherein Rajesh has alleged that if
something untoward happens to him, Chhittar Patel, Mukesh Patel (applicant),
Mamta Bai, Sunita Bai, Shubham Patel, Maheshpuri, Udaipuri and Ashok
Chouhan would be responsible. On such allegations, PS Betma, District
Indore(M.P.) registered FIR for offence punishable under Sections 108(1) and 3(5)
of BNS, 2023 against Mahesh Puri, Udaipuri, Chhittar Patel, Mukesh Patel,
Shubham Patel, Mamtabai, Sunitabai and Ashok Chouhan. Mahesh Puri was
arrested. The statement of witnesses have been recorded. Investigation is
underway. Applicant is apprehending arrest in the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant in additions to the grounds mentioned in
the application, submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in this matter over
land dispute between the parties. Applicant is brother of main accused Chhittar
Patel. It is a case of false over implication. There was a continuing land dispute
between the parties which was being contested at Civil Court and Revenue Court.
Rajesh tried to take forceful possession of the land. There was a quarrel between
the parties. The offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC was registered
against the Rajesh (deceased) for causing injury to family members of the
applicant. No offence, as alleged, is made out against the applicant. Applicant is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 01-05-2025
10:34:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11355
3 MCRC-17100-2025
aged 44 years. He is an agriculturist by profession and sole bread earner of the
family. He is ready to co-operate in the investigation. Jail incarceration on false
allegation would cause severe hardship to the applicant. Therefore, applicant may
be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State ably assisted by learned counsel for
the objector opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence.
Learned counsel contends that the applicant and his family members had harassed
and compelled Rajesh to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the objector,
referring to previous FIR and complaints, submits that the applicant has been
threatening and harassing the deceased since the year 2023. Feeling distressed,
Rajesh ultimately committed suicide. The family members of the applicant are
still threatening the family members of the deceased for settlement in the matter.
Therefore, the applicant may not be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. The
learned counsel for the State cites two criminal antecedent against the applicant.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR and the
complaints relate to the year 2023. There is no allegation of harassment or threat
given by the applicant in close proximity of death of Rajesh.
6. Heard the arguments, perused the case diary and the video, allegedly,
recovered from mobile phone of Rajesh.
7. The case diary and the material on record reveal that deceased Rajesh has
alleged that the family members of applicant are harassing him over land dispute.
They are interfering in taking over possession of land. There is no allegation that
the applicant in close proximity of death of Rajesh had directly communicated
with him or harassed him over the dispute. Rajesh feeling distressed over the land
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 01-05-2025
10:34:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11355
4 MCRC-17100-2025
dispute and criminal prosecution has committed suicide. However, the material on
record does not display any mensrea or intention on part of the applicant with
regard to death of Rajesh. There is no material showing communication between
applicant and deceased in close proximity of his death. In the case of suicide,
mere allegation of harassment of the deceased would not suffice unless there be
such an action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit
suicide and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR
2002 SC 199; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in
(2010) 1 SCC 707 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others reported in 2020(SCC Online) SC 964 relied). The veracity of the
prosecution will be determined after evidence by the trial Court. However, it is
clarified that the observations, herein-above, are recorded for present application
only.
8. Considering the age, profession, family responsibility of the applicant, there
appears to be no likelihood of fleeing from justice. In absence of substantial
criminal past and previous conviction for any major offence, there is no reason to
infer possibility of his involvement in any criminal activity or tampering with
evidence or influencing the witness or even interfering in the investigation. The
grant of bail appears to cause no prejudice to free, fair and full investigation.
Considering his age and socio-economic status, the applicant may suffer hardship
and prejudice due to incarceration entailing social disrepute and humiliation. The
trial would take time to conclude. There appears to be no compelling reason for
incarceration of the applicant.
9. Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of the case, in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 01-05-2025
10:34:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11355
5 MCRC-17100-2025
light of aforesaid facts, but without commenting on the merits, this Court is
inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Thus, present application is
allowed.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant -Mukesh
Singh shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.63/2025 registered
a t Police Station-Betma, District Indore(M.P.) for offence punishable under
Sections 108(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, upon furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lac Only) with a solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer making arrest /Trial
Court for compliance with the following conditions: (For the convenience of
understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of bail are also reproduced
in Hindi as under):-
(1) Applicant shall make himself available for investigation as may be
directed by the Investigation Officer.
(1) vUos”k.kdrkZ iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds funsZ’kkuqlkj vUos”k.k gsrq vkosnd miyC/k jgsxkA
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar
nature;
(2) vkosnd leku izd`fr dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha djsaxs ;k mlesa lfEefyr ugha gksaxsA
(3) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to the police officer;
(3) vkosnd izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh O;fDr dks izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls
izyksHku] /kedh ;k opu ugha nsxs] ftlls ,slk O;fDr ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl
vf/kdkjh dks izdV djus ls fuokfjr gksA(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the
evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;
(4) vkosnd izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls lk{; ds lkFk NsMNkM djus dk ;k lk{kh ;k
lkf{k;ksa dks cgykus&Qqlykus] ncko Mkyus ;k /kedkus dk iz;kl ugha djsaxsASignature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 01-05-2025
10:34:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:113556 MCRC-17100-2025
(5) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions
of Section 309 of Cr.P.C/346 of the BNSS. regarding examination of
witnesses in attendance;
(5) fopkj.k ds nkSjku] mifLFkr xokgksa ls ijh{k.k ds laca/k esa vkosndx.k /kkjk 309 na-iz-
la-@ 346 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa dk mfpr vuqikyu lqfuf’pr
djasxsA
11. This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach
of any of the preconditions of bail, the Trial Court may consider on merit
cancellation of bail without any impediment of this order.
12. The Investigation Officer/trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on
the personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If
any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the
conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 01-05-2025
10:34:46