logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 330 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@SLP(Crl.) No. 457 of 2026)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
Parties : Vikas Kol Versus State of Madhya Pradesh\r\n
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------- For the Respondent: -----
Date of Judgment : 13-01-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Abetment to suicide
- Inducement
- Provocation
- FIR
- Chargesheet
- Suicide

3. Summary:
The appellant was named as an accused in an FIR alleging that he forcibly tried to marry the deceased, leading to her suicide. The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual and that there was no suicide note implicating him, seeking enlargement of bail. The State opposed bail, asserting the appellant’s persistent insistence caused the suicide. The Court held that issues of inducement, provocation, and abetment to suicide are for the trial court to examine after evidence is recorded. Since the chargesheet had been filed, the appellant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed, directing the lower court to enlarge bail under appropriate conditions.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. Appellant has been arrayed as an accused in FIR registered at Kolgawan Police Station alleging thereunder that father of the deceased had stated that accused had come to the house of the deceased, held his daughter's hand and insisted her to come alongwith him to get married and parents of the deceased including the complainant resisted such move and on being informed by the complainant, the accused's father came and took him back on the same night the complainant's daughter had committed suicide by hanging due to harassment meted out by the appellant to his daughter. Hence, he sought for action being taken against appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would buttress his argument by contending and reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, namely, the deceased and the appellant were in deep love and there being resistance to their relationship by their parents on account of caste differences and deceased being dejected, had committed suicide. He would also contend there was no suicide note left by deceased which would implicate the appellant even remotely. On this ground he seeks for appellant being enlargement on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, who is on advance notice, seeking time to file status report, which has been refused by this Court, would argue the matter by opposing the bail vehemently contending inter alia that appellant was responsible for the death of the girl and it is only on account of his persistent insistence to get married, she was unable to resist his advances and being dejected she had committed suicide. In the light of the said contention, he seeks for rejection of the prayer.

6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we see no reason to evaluate the rival contentions at this stage, since even remotely examining the same, is likely to prejudice the rights of the parties. The inducement or provocation to commit suicide or abetment to commit suicide are all factors which will have to be examined by the trial court, only after evidence of the prosecution witnesses are recorded.

7. At this stage, the appellant would be entitled for being released on bail, particularly, when chargesheet has been filed after completion of investigation. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional court may deems fit to impose. The appellant shall appear before the trial court on all the dates of hearing.

8. In view of the fact that learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent-State has assisted this Court on advance notice, it is needless to state that the appropriate Government shall issue suitable orders or G.O. in this regard for his appearance.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal