The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the foundational principle that bail is the rule and incarceration the exception, particularly in cases where the prosecution’s case lacks immediate corroboration and custodial interrogation is no longer necessary. The Court granted regular bail to the applicant, a husband accused in a suicide case linked to alleged dowry harassment, emphasizing constitutional protections under Article 21 and the absence of incriminating evidence despite the filing of a charge sheet.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted regular bail to the accused husband in a case involving alleged dowry harassment and suicide under Sections 85, 80(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court held that in the absence of a suicide note, delayed FIR, no neighbour testimony supporting prosecution, and no prior criminal record, continued custody was unjustified. The applicant was released on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to compliance with Section 480(3) of BNSS, 2023.
Background & Facts
The applicant, Ankit Kumar Kachhi, was arrested on 25 September 2025 following the suicide of his wife, who consumed a poisonous substance. The incident occurred in Jabalpur, and an FIR was registered at Police Station Panagar on 14 October 2025 - 19 days after the death. The prosecution alleges that the applicant subjected his wife to harassment for dowry, leading to her suicide. No suicide note was recovered. The charge sheet was filed before the bail application was moved.
The applicant has no prior criminal record. The marriage was a love marriage, and statements recorded from neighbours during investigation did not support the prosecution’s version of harassment or cruelty. The applicant has been in custody since his arrest, and the trial is expected to take considerable time. The applicant filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release on the grounds that custodial interrogation is no longer required and that his continued detention violates the principle of personal liberty under Article 21.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused in a suicide case under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita and Dowry Prohibition Act be granted regular bail when the FIR is delayed, no suicide note exists, neighbour statements are neutral, and the charge sheet has already been filed?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence with no direct corroboration. The 19-day delay in filing the FIR was unexplained and undermined the credibility of the allegations. The absence of a suicide note and neutral neighbour statements indicated that the death may not have been the result of criminal harassment. The applicant had no criminal antecedents and was not required for further interrogation. Continued detention, the counsel submitted, violated the presumption of innocence and the constitutional guarantee under Article 21. The filing of the charge sheet further negated the need for custody.
For the Respondent
The State and objector opposed bail, contending that the allegations involved a serious offence under Sections 85 and 3(5) of BNSS, 2023, which carry severe penalties. They argued that suicide in the context of marital discord often involves hidden evidence and that granting bail at this stage could lead to witness tampering or destruction of evidence. The gravity of the offence, they submitted, warranted continued custody pending trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a structured evaluation of the facts against the legal framework governing bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 and the constitutional mandate under Article 21. It noted that while the allegations were serious, the prosecution had not established a prima facie case of intentional cruelty or dowry demand sufficient to justify continued incarceration.
"Considering the fact that marriage of the applicant with the deceased/wife was love marriage and also considering the fact that the neighbours have not recorded anything against the applicant in the statement which supports the case of prosecution."
The Court emphasized that the absence of corroborative evidence from independent sources, such as neighbours, significantly weakened the prosecution’s narrative. The delay in lodging the FIR, without any reasonable explanation, further cast doubt on the immediacy and reliability of the allegations.
The Court also observed that the filing of the charge sheet indicated that the investigation was complete and that the accused’s presence in custody was no longer necessary for the purposes of investigation. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception," particularly where the accused is not a flight risk and has no prior record.
The Court declined to prejudge the merits of the case, stating that its decision was based solely on the procedural and evidentiary posture at the bail stage. It held that the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 must prevail unless there is a compelling reason to deny bail, which was absent here.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards for accused persons in dowry and suicide-related cases where evidence is circumstantial and delayed. Practitioners should now treat a delayed FIR, absence of a suicide note, and neutral neighbour statements as material factors favouring bail, even in serious cases under BNSS and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The ruling clarifies that the filing of a charge sheet substantially reduces the justification for continued custody, especially when the accused has no criminal history. It also affirms that courts must not equate the gravity of the offence with the necessity of custody - Article 21 requires a balanced assessment of liberty interests.
Future bail applications in similar cases should highlight these four factors: (1) delay in FIR, (2) absence of direct evidence like a suicide note, (3) neutral or exculpatory third-party statements, and (4) completion of investigation. This judgment provides a clear roadmap for arguing bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023.
