Arafat Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 01-04-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 1 MCRC-13506-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA st ON THE 1 OF APRIL, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13506 of 2026 ARAFAT KHAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance: Shri M. P. S. Raghuvanshi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Raj Kumar Shrivastava- Advocate for the applicant. Shri Abhinav Bhargav with Shri Jeetendra Jha- Advocate for the complainant. Shri Anurag Sharma - PP for the State. ORDER This is the first application, under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.06 of 2026 registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS, 2023. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased Mrityunjay gradually developed a relationship with Preeti Jadon (co-accused) via Facebook. Preeti Jadon (co-accused) repeatedly pressured him to divorce his first wife, Kirti. The deceased agreed, transferring two plots to Preeti and giving her some gold and silver jewelry. Both frequently met, and Preeti traveled to Gwalior, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 2 MCRC-13506-2026 while the deceased visited her official residence in Morena. On 12.12.2025, the deceased arrived unannounced at Preeti’s official quarters, where she initially resisted and tried to close the gate. Upon entering, he detected the smell of alcohol and saw a man hiding in the kitchen. Preeti allegedly instructed Arafat (present applicant), the man present in the house to assault the deceased, and she herself fired two shots with a pistol, which did not discharge. Both threatened the deceased not to disclose the incident, or else they would kill him. Presence of both were corroborated by the tower location and CDR of the mobile numbers of Sub-Inspector Preeti Jadon (co- accused) and Arafat Khan(present applicant). Before his death, the deceased tried to report the matter to Morena police, but his complaints were ignored. Screenshots, audio, and video evidence of the complaints were collected. Based on all evidence, it indicated that due to Preeti Jadon’s involvement with the deceased, he was mentally harassed, and as a result, he committed suicide on 15.12.2025 at around 10:30 AM in Sumit Sharma’s house, Adarsh Puram, Gole ka Mandir, Gwalior. Subsequently, after post-mortem investigation, a case under Sections 108 and 3(5) B.N.S. was registered against the accused at Gole Ka Mandir Police Station. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has been serving as a Constable in the Madhya Pradesh Police and has maintained an honest and unblemished record. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the alleged incident was stated to have occurred on 12.12.2025 between 10:00 p.m. to Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 3 MCRC-13506-2026 10:30 p.m., and at that time, it was alleged that the present applicant, Arafat Khan, a constable at Civil Lines Police Station, was present at the Preeti’s residence during the same period, allegedly corroborated by mobile tower locations and CDRs, which was incorrect, as Arafat Khan was present with his wife at another location at the relevant time. Mobile tower locations cover a wide range of several kilometers, and there is no oral, documentary, or electronic evidence to prove that the present applicant was at the Preeti’s residence during the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the prosecution story appears to have been developed solely on the statement of the mother of the deceased, who did not witness the alleged incident and the incident, as narrated by the prosecution, allegedly did not take place on 12.12.2025 between 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. The alleged incident has been fabricated by the police under pressure from the deceased’s family and certain outsiders with intent of falsely implicating the applicant. In reality, on 12.12.2025, between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., when the co-accused/Preeti was alone in her official residence in Morena, the deceased forcibly entered her residence, questioned her regarding marriage, and, upon being told that her family would discuss the matter, began verbally abusing her in obscene language. The deceased then struck the co-accused/Preeti on the head with a tiffin-box and hit her back with a nearby photo frame. When the co-accused attempted to protect herself, the deceased pulled out a pistol and fired, but the shot missed. He further assaulted her with the butt of the pistol, causing bleeding, and also kicked and punched her, before attempting to strike her with a frying pan from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 4 MCRC-13506-2026 kitchen and threatening to kill her. During this incident, the deceased also snatched her mobile phone and used it indecently to call her father and sister, preventing her from contacting her superiors or the police. She subsequently sought treatment at J.A. Hospital, Gwalior, where her injuries were recorded in an M.L.C. dated 13.12.2025, and photographs of the injuries along with medical documents were submitted before the court below in support of her defence. After the fear subsided, the applicant lodged an FIR on 14.12.2025 at Police Station Korwali, Morena, against the deceased at Crime No. 675 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 333, 331(6), 304(2), 296(a), and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the present case do not establish any responsibility of the applicant in the suicide of the deceased, which occurred three days after the alleged incident and there is no evidence to show that the deceased was in any way instigated or abetted by the applicant to commit suicide. Moreover, there is no mens rea or intention on the part of the applicant, which is an essential ingredient under Section 108 of B.N.S.S., and in the absence of such intention, no offence is made out against him. Since the elements required under Sections 108 and 45 of B.N.S.S. are not established, the offence under Section 108 is prima facie not made out. It is further submitted that the deceased and his family have a history of criminal conduct and several criminal cases have been registered against the deceased at Civil Lines, Morena, and Vijaypur, Sheopur. Notably, on 06.09.2020, the deceased’s wife, Smt. Kirti Chauhan, had filed an F.I.R. at Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 5 MCRC-13506-2026 Civil Lines Police Station, Morena, under Sections 498-A, 506 & 34 IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Additionally, the co- accused Preeti had already obtained divorce from her husband on the ground of cruelty on 11.01.2021, and the deceased had obtained divorce from his wife, Kirti Chauhan, by mutual consent only on 04.11.2025 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. The deceased’s elder brother, Pranav Pratap Singh @ Bittu Chauhan, had been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, in Sessions Case No. 37/2017 dated 23.12.2017. Due to the bad conduct of the deceased and his elder brother, their mother had bequeathed her property worth crores to the Hanuman Temple Trust, explicitly stating that her sons would not perform her last rites. Finally, it is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a police personnel with an unblemished career, and his arrest and judicial custody would adversely affect his career and reputation. The applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Relying on the judgement of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2025(1) MPLJ (Cri.) (S.C.) 354, it was argued that the Apex Court clarified the essential legal principle governing abatement of suicide and it was observed that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be a positive act of instigation or intentional aid by the accused, which creates such circumstances that the deceased is left with no option but to take his/her own life. Instigation involves a mental process of provoking, inciting, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 6 MCRC-13506-2026 or encouraging a person to commit suicide, and without such a positive act and clear mens rea on the part of the accused, a conviction for abatement cannot be sustained. Discord in personal relationships, even if emotionally distressing, is commonplace and does not, without more, establish criminal conduct or fulfill the ingredients of abatement of suicide. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 327, and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police with Velmurugan & Another v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1238, wherein the Court held that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must exist a clear mens rea and a positive act of instigation or intentional aid by the accused which creates circumstances leaving the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. The Hon’ble Court observed that abetment involves a mental process of instigating, provoking, or encouraging the deceased, and mere discord, ordinary differences, or emotional distress caused by the accused does not constitute abetment. It was further held that absent evidence of a direct act with the requisite intention, a conviction for abetment cannot be sustained, and such allegations cannot be used as a basis to harass or persecute the accused. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998, wherein the Court held that mere words spoken in the heat of a quarrel, even if interpreted as telling the deceased to “go and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 7 MCRC-13506-2026 die,” do not constitute instigation or the requisite mens rea for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Hon’ble Court observed that abetment involves a positive act of instigating, provoking, or intentionally aiding the deceased to commit suicide, and that without evidence of such intention, no offence is made out. Allegations of domestic discord or emotional distress alone, without a direct act with mens rea, cannot sustain a charge of abetment of suicide. It is further argued that the bail application of the aforesaid co- accused/Preeti was dismissed by the co-Ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4154/2026 and thereafter, the co-accused approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s)4171/2026 has granted interim protection to the co-accused-Preeti Jadon and has ordered that the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No.06/2026 registered at Police Station- Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior, subject to the condition that petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation/trial and shall also not threaten any witness. The case of the present applicant is also similar, even on the better footing to that of the co- accused. He is also ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court and is also ready to co-operate in investigation/trial without tampering with any prosecution evidence. In view of the above submissions, it was prayed that anticipatory bail to the applicant be granted, as he has been falsely implicated, has no mens rea, and his arrest would adversely affect his career and reputation. Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 8 MCRC-13506-2026 Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant opposed the anticipatory bail application and prayed for its rejection, contending that the allegations against the applicant are grave and pertain to the abetment of suicide of the deceased, Mrityunjay Chauhan. The deceased was an Advocate practicing in this Court and was the sole support of his elderly mother. The events leading to his suicide are directly connected to the conduct of the applicant, which allegedly involved the misuse of his official position as a police personnel to harass and intimidate the deceased. It is further submitted that on 12.12.2025, the applicant, together with the co-accused, confronted the deceased at co-accused's official residence, threatened him, and committed acts of intimidation and assault. Evidence in support of these allegations includes mobile CDRs, tower location records, and witness statements, which prima facie demonstrated that the actions of the applicant created circumstances that directly contributed to the deceased taking the extreme step of suicide. Being a public servant, the applicant is held to a higher standard of conduct, and his alleged acts not only violated this standard but also undermined public confidence in the police force. Accordingly, his arrest is necessary to ensure a fair and unobstructed investigation and to prevent any possible interference with evidence or witnesses. It is further submitted that on the date of incident, upon entering the residence of co-accused, the deceased discovered that the present applicant, Arafat Khan, was hiding in the kitchen and when he inquired about the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 9 MCRC-13506-2026 purpose of his visit, the applicant assaulted him and fled the spot. According to the mother of the deceased, liquor was present in the house and the accused were consuming it at the relevant time, which further shocked and mentally disturbed the deceased. Media reports and photographs, which came to public attention, intensified the deceased’s anguish. It is further alleged that the co-accused/Preeti misused his official position to lodge a false case against the deceased at Crime No. 675/2025, Police Station Kotwali, District Morena, thereby compounding his mental trauma. This conduct ultimately led to the deceased committing suicide on 15.12.2025. It is further submitted that the wife of Arafat Khan has admitted that her husband had an illicit relationship with the co-accused/Preeti, and the recording of this admission has been submitted to the police and forms part of the case diary. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is to be noted that the relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary discretionary relief, which is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the allegations are of a serious nature. The Court, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, is required to assess whether a prima facie case is made out, the gravity and nature of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the requirement of custodial interrogation. In the present case, the applicant is facing allegations of abetment of suicide of the deceased, Mrityunjay Chauhan, punishable under Section 108 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 10 MCRC-13506-2026 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The deceased was a practicing Advocate and, as borne out from the material on record, was emotionally and socially dependent upon the applicant. The prosecution has specifically alleged that on 12.12.2025, at the official residence of the co-accused in Morena, the deceased was subjected to assault, intimidation, and criminal threats by the applicant and the co-accused. The allegations further include misuse of official authority by the applicant, who is a serving Constable of Police, to instill fear in the mind of the deceased by asserting that no action could be taken against them. The statements of the deceased’s mother, contemporaneous communications made by the deceased, electronic evidence including audio and video recordings, mobile call detail records, and tower location data prima facie corroborate the prosecution version and indicate a continuing course of conduct that resulted in severe mental trauma to the deceased. The material further indicates that after the incident of 12.12.2025, the deceased remained under constant fear and apprehension, repeatedly contacting his mother and expressing that he was being threatened and harassed by the applicant and the co-accused. The suicide of the deceased on 15.12.2025, within a short span of time from the alleged incident, lends further weight to the prosecution case at this preliminary stage. This Court is conscious of the legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments relied upon by the applicant regarding the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide. However, it is equally well settled that the existence or absence of mens rea, instigation, or intentional Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 11 MCRC-13506-2026 aid is a matter to be determined on the basis of evidence led during trial. At the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, the Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case. In the present matter, the cumulative effect of the allegations, the surrounding circumstances, and the material placed on record prima facie disclose a nexus between the conduct attributed to the applicant and the suicide of the deceased. The status of the applicant as a public servant entrusted with enforcement of law further weighs against the grant of anticipatory bail. Allegations of misuse of official position, intimidation of witnesses, and interference with the investigative process cannot be lightly brushed aside. The complaint dated 07.01.2026 alleging threats to witnesses, coupled with the fact that the alleged weapon has not yet been recovered, necessitates a thorough and unhindered investigation. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may impede the collection of evidence and adversely affect the fairness of the investigation. The Court has duly considered the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, namely, Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka (supra), Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), M. Mohan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). There can be no quarrel with the legal principles enunciated therein, which emphasize that mere discord in a relationship, emotional distress, or refusal to marry, in isolation, would not constitute abetment of suicide in the absence of a positive act, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 12 MCRC-13506-2026 instigation, or mens rea. However, the facts of the present case stand on a materially different footing. The allegations herein are not confined to a mere broken relationship or emotional discord. The prosecution case prima facie discloses specific acts of assault, intimidation, and criminal threats, allegedly accompanied by misuse of official position by the applicant, the serving police personnel. The material further indicates that the deceased was made to believe that he would receive no protection from law enforcement, thereby creating a situation of extreme fear and psychological pressure. In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the alleged words were uttered in the heat of a quarrel and there was no continuing conduct or proximate nexus between the alleged act and the suicide. In contrast, the present case involves allegations of a continuous course of conduct, repeated threats, and intimidation, with the suicide occurring within a short span of time thereafter. At this stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, the Court is not expected to test the truthfulness or sufficiency of the evidence, but only to ascertain whether the allegations disclose a prima facie case warranting further investigation. The cumulative effect of the allegations, the status of the applicant as a public servant, the allegation of threatening witnesses, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, particularly with respect to recovery of the weapon and verification of electronic evidence, weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court is also mindful that the applicant, being a serving police Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10784 13 MCRC-13506-2026 official/Constable, occupies a position of influence and authority. Allegations of misuse of such authority, if substantiated, have serious implications not only for the administration of justice but also for public confidence in the police machinery. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper a free, fair, and impartial investigation. This Court also considered the arguments raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, that the co-accused/Preeti has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 4171/2026. The Hon'ble Apex Court has granted interim protection to the co-accused and it does not appear to be an absolute bail and final decision over the aforesaid petition is yet to be given. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of BNSS. The nature of allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, the proximity between the alleged acts and the suicide, and the necessity of custodial interrogation cumulatively dis-entitle the applicant from the relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed. (RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA ) JUDGE Vishal Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 4/2/2026 11:22:39 AM</div>