Suraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:85240
1 MCRC-49558-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
rd
ON THE 23 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49558 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010742632026
SURAJ SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Baboo Ji Chourasia and Shri Sukh Nandan Pandey - Advocate for
the applicant.
Ms. Vibha Pathak - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973
seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.134 of 2026
registered at Police Station - Sirmour, District - Rewa (M.P.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 107 of the BNS, 2023.
2 . The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased died by suicide by
hanging. Thereafter, t h e police registered a m e r g a n d conducted an
investigation into the incident. During the course of the investigation, it was
revealed that the applicant had allegedly been pressuring the deceased and
her family members t o enter into a compromise i n a matter between the
applicant and the deceased. It is further alleged that, due to the harassment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:02:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:85240
2 MCRC-49558-2026
caused b y the applicant, the deceased died b y suicide. Accordingly, the

police registered a criminal case against the applicant, and the applicant
apprehends arrest in the matter.
3 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that,
on the basis of a complaint lodged by the deceased, an FIR was registered
against the applicant in Uttar Pradesh for offences punishable under Sections
137(2), 87, 64(1), 351(2) BNS and the provisions of the POCSO Act, in
which the applicant was granted bail by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.
It is further submitted that, thereafter, the deceased sent a video recording to
the applicant from the mobile phone of her maternal grandmother, stating
that her grandparents were conspiring to kill her and the present applicant.
When the deceased’s grandparents came to know about the aforesaid matter,
they allegedly subjected her to harassment and torture. Learned counsel
further submits that, owing to the aforesaid circumstances, the deceased died
by suicide. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased lodged the present FIR
against the applicant, alleging that he used to call and harass the deceased
and that, as a result of such harassment, she died by suicide. On these
grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant be granted the benefit of
anticipatory bail.
4 . Per contra,learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions
made o n behalf o f t h e applicant a n d submitted that t h e applicant had
pressured the deceased to enter into a compromise in the criminal case. She
further submits that the applicant harassed the deceased through video calls.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:02:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:85240
3 MCRC-49558-2026
She also submits that, during the course of the investigation, a Call Detail

Record (CDR) was obtained, which indicates that the applicant had made
calls to the deceased. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for rejection
of the bail application.
5. Heard the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and also perused
the record.
6. The bail is a discretionary domain and the power to grant anticipatory bail
is extraordinary in nature. The Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay and
others v. State of Bihar and another, (2024) 12 SCC 382 has observed that:
"..Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it
cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail
is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should
be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court
depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While
called upon to exercise the said power, the court concerned has to
be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to
the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and
may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence....".
7. Of-late, the Supreme Court in the case of Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai
Shah v. Kamal Dayani (2025) 1 SCC 753 has observed that the power to
grant anticipatory bail should not be exercised in routine manner, but with
great degree of circumspection.
8. Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perusing the case diary and other material available on record and
CDR report, this Court is of the considered view that looking to the nature
and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the role
attributed to him and the stage of investigation, no ground is made out for
extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. In the considered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:02:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:85240
4 MCRC-49558-2026
opinion of this Court, the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is,

therefore, not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. Accordingly, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby
dismissed.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE
SSL

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:02:54