Abhijit Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NON-REPORTABLE 2026 INSC 83 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 446 OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.16817 OF 2025)

ABHIJIT PANDEY …. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA …. RESPONDENT(S) PRADESH AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In the instant Appeal, the appellant is challenging the order dated

06.10.2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal

Case No.22396 of 2025 whereby the High Court has rejected his regular bail

application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR/Crime No.105/2025 registered at Police

Station – Shahpura, District – Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, for the offence

punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for

short, ‘the BNS’). However, subsequently, a charge-sheet has been filed for

the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 80 of the BNS and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MINI Date: 2026.01.23 16:39:13 IST Reason: CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 16817/2025 Page 1 of 7

3. The appellant, a dentist, was running a clinic at M.P. Nagar, Bhopal,

Madhya Pradesh, where he came in contact with the deceased-Dr. Richa

Pandey. After one and a half years of relationship, they got married on

04.12.2024 and started their matrimonial life while residing at House No.16,

Sky Dream Colony, Bhopal. The deceased died on 21.03.2025 which was

initially termed as suicide, but subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed for the

offences punishable under Sections 108 and 80(2) of the BNS and Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Special Judge (O.A.W.)/Fifth

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, vide its order dated

07.07.2025 framed charges under Sections 108 and 80(2) of the BNS and, in

the alternative, under Sections 103 and 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. In the impugned order, the High Court has noted the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the parties in paragraphs 1 to 4 and, thereafter,

rejected the appellant's petition for regular bail by observing that looking to

the overall facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of offence,

the prayer for bail is declined.

5. According to the appellant, when on the morning of 21.03.2025 the

deceased did not come out of her room, the appellant got worried and knocked

on the door and called her several times but the door was locked from inside

which was ultimately broken and the appellant entered the room in the

presence of some individuals who were present with the appellant when the

door was broken. The appellant found his wife lying on the bed in an

unresponsive state. There were needle pricks on the left hand of the deceased.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 16817/2025 Page 2 of 7 The local Police was informed, and the family members and relatives of the

deceased were also informed. She was taken to the hospital in the presence

and in the car belonging to the uncle and aunt of the deceased. Upon reaching

the hospital, she was declared dead.

6. FIR dated 24.03.2025 was registered against the appellant alleging that

he was in a relationship with another woman, namely Mahi which led the

deceased to commit suicide by poisoning. The appellant was arrested on

25.03.2025 and since then he is in custody. The charge-sheet has been filed

on 05.06.2025 and the charges have been framed on 07.07.2025.

7. Shri Vivek K. Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant, would submit that the present case is an unfortunate case of

commission of suicide by the deceased as she was suspecting an extra-marital

relation of the appellant with one woman, namely Mahi, who was working in

his clinic. He would submit that there is absolutely no material which would

amount to abetment of committing suicide. It is also submitted that there is

no material either to prima facie conclude that the appellant is guilty of

committing murder or dowry death of the deceased. He would submit that in

the FIR and in the initial case diary statements of the witnesses, there was no

allegation of demand of money/dowry, which has come in the subsequent

statements of the said witnesses by way of improvement. It is also submitted

that the appellant, who is a dentist by profession, is not a hardened criminal;

therefore, once the charge-sheet has been filed, there is no justification for

keeping him inside the jail. He further submitted that the appellant is ready

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 16817/2025 Page 3 of 7 to abide by any terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court on

releasing the appellant on bail.

8. In contrast, Shri Sridhar Potaraju, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for respondent no.1, State of Madhya Pradesh, and Shri Praveen

Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2, the complainant, would

vehemently oppose the prayer for bail made by the appellant in this Appeal.

According to them, the present is a case of committing murder of the deceased

by injecting Atracurium Besylate Injection. It is also submitted that when the

post-mortem was conducted on 22.03.2025, five injuries were found which

suggest commission of physical assault on the deceased before death. It is

also submitted that the statements of Renu Pandey (mother of the deceased),

Vinod Chandra Pandey (father of the deceased), Himanshu Pandey (brother of

the deceased), Prakash Chandra Pandey (uncle of the deceased) and other

relatives clearly demonstrate that the appellant used to demand money from

the deceased and, thus, a prima facie case of dowry death is made out.

9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties

at length and perused the papers available on record.

10. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is stated that Himanshu

Pandey (brother of the deceased) received a message from his sister (deceased)

on the intervening night of 20-21.03.2025 in which she had sent the PIN

number of her mobile phone. When the deceased’s Apple iPhone was opened

through that PIN, the Police recovered a photograph of a two-page

handwritten suicide note, several WhatsApp chats, screenshots and an audio

recording of a quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the night of

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 16817/2025 Page 4 of 7 20-21.03.2025. In this recording, the deceased can be heard stating that “You

only give importance to Mahi, You do everything for her, You don’t do anything

for me. You will see my dead face tomorrow morning”. These contents disclose

persistent marital discord and emotional distress. The post-mortem

examination conducted on 22.03.2025 noted the following ante-mortem

injuries on the person of the deceased:

(i) Intravenous prick mark associated with subcutaneous hematoma

present over dorsum of left hand medically;

(ii) Linear scratch abrasion reddish in colour present vertically over

dorsum of left hand in the midline;

(iii) Superficial incised wound skin deep present over ventral aspect of

right thumb laterally;

(iv) A bluish greenish colour contusion present over front aspect of right

thigh; and

(v) Subscalp hematoma inform of organised blood clot over occipital

region.

11. In the Query Report related to the injuries found on the body of the

deceased, it was opined that injury no.(i) was likely to be caused by the needle

of a syringe/injection and it can be self-inflicted. Similarly, injury no.(ii) was

also found to have been caused by some pointed needle like object. Injury

no.(iii) was found to have been caused by a thin or sharp object. It was further

noted that injury no.(iii) could have been caused while breaking a glass

syringe. As far as injury no.(iv) is concerned, it was opined that it could have

been caused by pressure from a hard object or surface.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 16817/2025 Page 5 of 7

12. Significantly, the post-mortem report indicates that injury no.(iv) is

within four to five days prior to death. Injury nos.(i), (ii) and (iii) were probably

caused by the needle of syringe/injection. As far as injury no.(v) is concerned,

the post-mortem report does not indicate about how injury was caused and

the probable time between the injury and death.

13. In the FIR lodged by Himanshu Pandey (brother of the deceased), it was

prima facie suspected that the deceased committed suicide due to persistent

mental harassment inflicted upon her by her husband-Dr. Abhijit Pandey as

he was having relationship with his nurse-Mahi. It was registered for an

offence relating to abetment to commit suicide. No allegation of demand of

dowry was made in the FIR.

14. The counter affidavit filed by the State contains the first case diary

statement of Vinod Chandra Pandey (father of the deceased) in which there is

no allegation of demand of dowry. Similar is the case with the statements of

Renu Pandey (mother of the deceased) and Himanshu Pandey (brother of the

deceased). Thus, allegation concerning demand of money/dowry came in the

subsequent case diary statements.

15. Considering that the FIR was registered for an offence concerning

abetment to commit suicide and the deceased had not sustained any such

injury which can be said to be the cause of her death and prima facie it is

found that she died of Atracurium Besylate Injection which is a medicine given

as anaesthesia and the deceased herself was an anaesthetist and that the

allegation of demand of money/dowry was not made in the first instance but

was made in the subsequent case diary statements, as also for the reason

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 16817/2025 Page 6 of 7 that the appellant is not a hardened criminal, though one more case is

registered against him concerning cheating and forgery in which a large

number of persons are involved and there being no possibility of the appellant

not being available for trial as also for the reason that he is in jail since

25.03.2025, we are inclined to allow the present Appeal and release the

appellant on bail. Ordered accordingly.

16. The Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed

by the High Court is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail

subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

The appellant shall cooperate with the Trial Court and shall not influence the

witnesses in any manner.

17. We make it clear that the observations made in this judgment are only

for the purposes of considering the prayer of the appellant for grant of regular

bail. None of the observations made herein shall have a bearing on the main

trial. The Trial Court shall decide the case on its merits and in accordance

with law. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open.

.…………………..........................J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

……………...............................J. (N.V. ANJARIA)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 23, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 16817/2025 Page 7 of 7