Rahul Kushwah vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

The applicant has filed this First bail application under Section 482 of BNSS/438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.122/2025 registered at Police Station Dursada, Tehsil Bhander, District Datia (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 108, 3 (5) of BNSS.

According to the prosecution, on 27.06.2025, Bharat Kushwaha, lodged a report stating that at about 05:00 AM, when he woke up, he saw his sister Uma vomiting outside the house. When he asked her what happened, Uma told him that she had consumed two tablets usually kept for storing grains. He immediately informed his father Badam Singh and mother Kamla Kushwaha, who were at the buffalo shed. By the time they reached, Uma's condition had worsened. Thereafter, his father took Uma on a motorcycle to the hospital at Datia, where doctors treated her, induced vomiting, but as her condition became more serious, she was referred to Medical College, Jhansi. However, before she could be taken to Jhansi, Uma passed away. During investigation, the statements of the deceased's relatives were recorded. In their statements, it came out that deceased Uma committed suicide because accused Rahul Kushwaha and Deepak Kushwaha had conveyed insulting and derogatory remarks about her character to her fiancé Rohit Kushwaha, due to which Uma felt harassed and distressed and consumed the poison tablets kept for grains.Further, statements of the fiancé of the deceased, Rohit and his family members were also recorded. In their statements, they revealed that Rahul Kushwaha and Deepak Kushwaha had told Rohit that they had physical relations with Uma and that she was not a good girl, and hence he should not marry her. Rohit also produced a recording of this conversation in a pen drive which was seized by the police.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant's name was implicated for the first time nearly three months after the incident on the basis of hearsay evidence. There was no allegation that the applicant directly instigated, provoked or conspired with the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the evidence. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and trial and is willing to abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and prayed for dismissal of the application.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

From perusing the case diary, it appears that the applicant/accused is charged with the offence under Section 108,3 (5) of the IPC on the ground that he disclosed the previous relationship between him and the deceased to the deceased's fiance and consequently the deceased committed suicide due to being upset with the denial shown to her by the deceased's fiance. In the above circumstances, considering the nature of the offence against the applicant and the evidence available on record against him on this point as collected by the police and the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Accordingly, this first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.