Smt. Neelam Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86627
1 MCRC-44254-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44254 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010664822026
SMT. NEELAM KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Surdeep Khampariya - counsel for the applicant
Shri Ankit Singh Sisodiya - Panel Lawyer for State
ORDER
This is first application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by applicant for grant of regular bail relating
to FIR/Crime No.410/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District
Chhattarpur(M.P.), for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) of
BNS. The applicant is in custody since 03/06/2026.
2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a report
stating that on 21.05.2026, at approximately 3:00 p.m., his son, Deendayal,
left home stating that he was going to Chhatarpur to meet his children.
However, he did not return home until the evening of 01.06.2026. Upon
making inquiries, the complainant came to know that the deceased had gone
to the house of Ramswaroop Kushwaha, where he met the
applicant's mother. The deceased, Deendayal, was found lying unconscious
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
17:09:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86627
2 MCRC-44254-2026
in a room of the house used as a shop and was found to have died. During

the course of the investigation, it was revealed that at approximately 10:00
a.m., a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the applicant at the
entrance of the house and the applicant had allegedly assaulted Deendayal
with a wooden stick (danda), resulting in his death.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was
arrested on 03.06.2026 and has remained in judicial custody continuously
since then. The applicant’s earlier application for regular bail was rejected by
the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, vide order dated
03.09.2026, and she continues to remain in custody thereafter. The
investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before
the competent Court; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the
applicant is required. There is no direct eyewitness evidence to establish that
the applicant inflicted the fatal injuries upon the deceased, and the
prosecution case substantially rests upon circumstantial evidence. The
complete chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is yet to be
established during trial, and its ultimate evidentiary value cannot be
conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of bail. The applicant is
a young woman aged approximately 26 years and has no criminal
antecedents. The applicant is the mother of two minor children, aged
approximately three and six years, respectively, who require maternal care,
affection, supervision and emotional support. Both minor children were
permitted to remain with the applicant in District Jail, Chhatarpur, for one
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
17:09:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86627
3 MCRC-44254-2026
day on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan; however, thereafter, they were not

permitted to continue staying with her in jail and were taken outside. They
are presently residing with their relatives, who are looking after their day-to-
day needs during the applicant’s incarceration. The care being provided by
the relatives does not completely substitute the maternal care, affection and
emotional security ordinarily provided by the applicant, particularly
considering the tender ages of the children. The continued incarceration of
the applicant has resulted in prolonged separation from her minor children,
who remain dependent upon others for their daily care and upbringing. The
younger child, aged approximately three years, requires continuous care,
affection and emotional security, whereas the elder child, aged
approximately six years, is at a formative stage of education and
development and requires appropriate parental supervision and emotional
support. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. &
Others, (2007) 15 SCC 337 : AIR 2006 SC 1946, has recognised the
importance of safeguarding the welfare, care, education and development of
children affected by the incarceration of women prisoners. The applicant
submits that the interests and welfare of her two minor children constitute
relevant humanitarian considerations while examining her prayer for bail.
The minor children, who have no connection with the alleged offence, ought
not to suffer disproportionate hardship on account of the applicant’s
continued incarceration, particularly when their mother’s presence and care
are of considerable importance to their well-being. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , (2018) 3 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
17:09:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86627
4 MCRC-44254-2026
22, reiterated that bail is ordinarily the rule and incarceration an exception,

and the discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, having regard
to the facts and circumstances of each case. In Sanjay Chandra v. Central
Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that pre-trial detention should not be used as a means of
punishment before conviction and the necessity of securing the accused’s
presence during trial and preventing interference with the administration of
justice are relevant considerations. The principles governing bail and the
avoidance of unnecessary incarceration have also been considered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. The existence of matrimonial
differences or matrimonial proceedings between the applicant and the
deceased cannot, by itself, establish the applicant’s involvement in the
alleged offence of murder. Her alleged role and the prosecution evidence are
matters to be examined in accordance with law during trial. The alleged
memorandum and the recovery of the alleged weapon are matters of
evidence, the admissibility, reliability and evidentiary value of which are
required to be tested during trial and cannot be conclusively assessed at the
stage of consideration of bail. He submits that the applicant’s case, deserves
consideration in the light of the constitutional principles governing personal
liberty, the presumption of innocence and the humanitarian circumstances
arising from her responsibility towards her two minor children.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application and submits
that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, as she is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
17:09:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86627
5 MCRC-44254-2026
alleged to have assaulted the deceased Deendayal with a wooden stick

(danda), resulting in his death. It is contended that the material collected
during the investigation prima facie indicates the applicant’s involvement in
the alleged offence. The absence of direct eyewitness evidence does not, by
itself, entitle the applicant to bail, particularly when the prosecution case is
based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of which is required to be
examined during trial.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for
the State and perused the case diary and the material available on record. The
fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been
filed, though relevant, is not by itself sufficient to entitle the applicant to
bail, particularly having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations
and the material collected during the investigation. Having regard to the
nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the role attributed to the applicant
and looking to injuries which were found on the body of the deceased and
the material presently available on record, this Court is not inclined to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the present application for grant of regular bail is
rejected.
(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE
S /-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
17:09:42