Bahadar Singh Mewada vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
1
CRR NO.909/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 909 of 2026

BAHADAR SINGH MEWADA AND ONE ANOTHER
Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Hemnani –Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Viraj Godha –G.A for the respondent/State.
Shri Amit Pal - Advocate for the surety.

Reserved on : 09/07/2026
Post on : 14/07/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
2
CRR NO.909/2026
1. The present criminal revision is preferred by the petitioners
under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, read with Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) against the impugned
order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Shujalpur, District Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 5/2026, arising
out of Crime No.398/2025 registered at Police Station Kalapipal.
The revisionists, Bhadar Singh and Nandkishore, seek to challenge
the framing of charges against them under Section 108(1) read with
Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), praying
for discharge from the said charges.
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. As per the prosecution case, the deceased, Bhagwan Singh,
had obtained a loan from co-accused Nandkishore on interest. It is
alleged that the petitioners repeatedly demanded repayment of the
said loan, subjecting the deceased to harassment, ill-treatment, and
threats.
3. The prosecution alleges that due to the pressure and mental
harassment caused by these repeated demands, the deceased was
left in a distressed state of mind. Consequently, on 21.07.2025 at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
3
CRR NO.909/2026
about 3:00 PM, the deceased consumed Salphus (a poisonous
substance) at his agricultural field, resulting in his death.
4. Following the unnatural death, the police registered Marg
No.51/2025 under Section 194 of BNSS. Based on the inquiry and
statements recorded, Crime No.398/2025 was registered on
25.08.2025 at 13:07 hours against the petitioners under Sections
108 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
5. The petitioners approached the High Court and were granted
anticipatory bail in MCRC No.40429/2025 and MCRC No.
40258/2025. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed on 24.11.2025 under Section 108 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023,
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Protection of Debtors
Act.
6. It is a crucial factual aspect of this matter that a diary, which
is alleged to be recovered during the course of the investigation,
does not form part of the charge-sheet submitted by the prosecution
before the trial court. The petitioners subsequently filed an
application for discharge under Section 250 of BNSS. Vide the
impugned order dated 12.02.2026, the learned Sessions Court
partially allowed the application, discharging the petitioners under
the MP Protection of Debtors Act, but erroneously proceeded to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
4
CRR NO.909/2026
frame charges under Section 108(1) read with Section 3(5) of BNS,
2023.
CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONISTS
7. The petitioners contended that the impugned order is
arbitrary, mechanical, and suffers from complete non-application of
judicial mind. They submitted that the essential ingredients of
Section 108 BNS, which require clear and intentional instigation,
provocation, or active aiding, are entirely absent from the record.
8. It was specifically pleaded that a mere demand for the
repayment of a loan advanced in the ordinary course of financial
dealings, or telephonic communication regarding the same, cannot
be construed as an instigation to commit suicide.
9. The revisionists further highlighted an unexplained delay of
approximately 33 days in lodging the FIR, which casts serious
doubt on the prosecution’s case. In this regard, reliance was placed
on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v.
State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393, and Lalita Kumari v.
Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
10. To buttress the argument that abetment requires deliberate
intention, the petitioners placed reliance on Sanju alias Sanjay
Singh Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, M. Arjunan vs. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
5
CRR NO.909/2026
State Rep. by its Inspector of Police, (2018) SCC 1269,
Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) SCC
117, Rinku Lodha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (CRR No. 13 of
2023) and Rajesh S/o Mathuradas Advani Vs State of M.P.
(CRR No. 3155/2019).
CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE / RESPONDENT
11. The State vehemently opposed the present criminal revision
petition. It was contended by the respondent that the learned
Sessions Court had rightly evaluated the material on record to frame
the charges. The State further submitted that the continuous
pressure exerted upon the deceased for the repayment of the loan
amounted to mental harassment, which justifies the framing of
charges and warrants a full trial.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
12. It is a settled position of law that revisional jurisdiction is
supervisory in nature and does not function as a regular Court of
Appeal. Re-appreciation of evidence is generally impermissible
unless required to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.
Interference by this Court is ordinarily warranted only in cases
involving a jurisdictional error, patent illegality, material
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
6
CRR NO.909/2026
irregularity, perversity of findings, or a manifest error apparent on
the face of the record.
13. Upon examining the reasoning adopted by the learned
Sessions Judge, it is apparent that charges under Section 108 of
BNS were framed on the premise that the deceased was harassed by
demands for the repayment of the loan.
14. However, the subordinate court failed to consider whether
such harassment was of a nature that left the deceased with no other
option but to end his life. The absence of the allegedly recovered
diary from the charge-sheet creates a gaping hole in the
prosecution's narrative, leaving the allegations of severe, proximate
harassment unsupported by cogent documentary evidence.
15. The material on record lacks any indication of an overt act,
threat, or active instigation proximate to the incident that could
establish mens rea on the part of the petitioners.
16. The framing of charges without evaluating the fundamental
requirement of intentional provocation, coupled with the glaring
omission of the alleged diary from the charge-sheet, constitutes a
patent illegality and reflects a misappreciation of the settled legal
principles. Subjecting the petitioners to trial in these circumstances
amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
7
CRR NO.909/2026
17. Abetment of suicide requires a positive and deliberate act. In
the case of Sanju v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 : (2002)
SCC (Cri) 1141 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 548 at page 375, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
“12. The word “instigate” denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or
inadvisable action or to stimulate or
incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is
the necessary concomitant of instigation.
It is common knowledge that the words
uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the
moment cannot be taken to be uttered with
mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and
emotion.”
18. Further, the parameters of abetment have been
comprehensively elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Prakash And Others The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2024 INSC 1020, wherein it was observed:
“17. This Court held that abetment
involves the mental process of instigating
a person or intentionally aiding a person
in doing of a thing. Therefore, without a
positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid a person in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
This Court further observed that the
intention of the legislature and the ratio of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
8
CRR NO.909/2026
the cases decided by this Court is clear
that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear
mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment
also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no other option and that act must
have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed
suicide. However, this Court has
cautioned that since each person reacts
differently to the same provocation
depending on a variety of factors, it is
impossible to lay down a straightjacket
formula to deal with such cases.
Therefore, every such case has to be
decided on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.

22. It could thus be seen that this Court
observed that in cases of alleged abetment
of suicide, there must be a proof of direct
or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It has been held
that since the cause of suicide particularly
in the context of the offence of abetment of
suicide involves multifaceted and complex
attributes of human behaviour, the court
would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide.
This Court further observed that a mere
allegation of harassment of the deceased
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
9
CRR NO.909/2026
by another person would not suffice
unless there is such action on the part of
the accused which compels the person to
commit suicide. This Court also
emphasised that such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. It was further clarified that
the question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined
with reference to the actual acts and
deeds of the accused. It was further held
that if the acts and deeds are only of such
nature where the accused intended
nothing more than harassment or a snap-
show of anger, a particular case may fall
short of the offence of abetment of suicide,
however, if the accused kept on irritating
or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was
provoked, a particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide. This Court held that
owing to the fact that the human mind
could be affected and could react in
myriad ways and that similar actions are
dealt with differently by different persons,
each case is required to be dealt with its
own facts and circumstances.”
19. In view of the explicit statutory requirements and the binding
precedents extracted above, this Court finds that the act of the
accused must be the direct and proximate cause of the suicide. Mere
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
10
CRR NO.909/2026
demand for the repayment of a loan does not satisfy this essential
legal threshold.
20. On a careful scrutiny of the record, including the significant
fact that the allegedly recovered diary does not form part of the
charge-sheet, the case of abetment of suicide is not made out. There
is no cogent evidence to establish that the petitioners actively
incited or intentionally provoked the deceased to take the extreme
step.

21. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned
Sessions Court suffers from manifest legal infirmity, non-
application of mind, and jurisdictional error. Continuance of the
proceedings under these circumstances would result in a grave
miscarriage of justice.
22. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the present criminal
revision petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 12.02.2026
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sujalpur, District Shajapur in
Sessions Trial No.5/2026 is hereby set aside . The petitioners,
Bhadar Singh and Nandkishore, are discharged from the charges
framed under Section 108(1) read with Section 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Their bail bonds, if any, stand
discharged.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18900
11
CRR NO.909/2026
23. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as
to costs.

(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/14/2026
6:52:35 PM