Introduction
Cases involving allegations of sexual assault on a minor under the pretext of marriage, combined with abetment of suicide, represent some of the most sensitive and complex matters that criminal courts encounter. They require careful judicial assessment of the evidence — not only regarding the primary offence, but also regarding the causal chain between the accused’s conduct and the deceased’s ultimate act. When the prosecution’s own case reveals significant gaps in establishing abetment, when the deceased’s family’s conduct raises questions, and when independent witnesses provide a contradictory account, courts must examine whether continued pre-trial detention is justified. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur addressed this balance in MCRC No. 3126 of 2026, decided on 11 March 2026.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Durgesh @ Deepak @ Lalu Dhuliya, filed his first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 267/2025 registered at Police Station Jaithari, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh.
The applicant had been in judicial custody since 19 June 2025 — nearly nine months by the time of hearing.
The offences alleged were under:
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 107, BNS 2023 | Abetment of suicide |
| Section 64(2)(m), BNS 2023 | Rape — aggravated sexual assault |
| Section 64(2)(f), BNS 2023 | Rape — aggravated sexual assault |
| Section 5(L), POCSO Act 2012 | Aggravated penetrative sexual assault |
| Section 6, POCSO Act 2012 | Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault |
The Prosecution’s Case
As per the prosecution’s case, the applicant allegedly committed sexual intercourse with the minor prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and subsequently denied marrying her. It was further alleged that the applicant abetted the deceased to commit suicide. A positive DNA report was placed before the Court by the State in support of its case.
Key Facts and Defence Submissions
Senior Advocate Shri Mrigendra Singh, appearing with Shri Rohit Mishra, placed the following significant facts and arguments before the Court:
1. Consensual Relationship — Not Assault It was submitted that there was a pre-existing relationship between the applicant and the deceased — a fact that was known and relevant to the overall context of the case. The relationship was not one of a stranger exploiting a victim but involved mutual acquaintance.
2. Cause of Suicide — Brother’s Assault, Not Abetment by Applicant A critical alternative narrative was placed before the Court: when the deceased’s brother came to know about the relationship, he assaulted the deceased. It was submitted that it was this assault by her own family member — not any act of the applicant — that drove the deceased to commit suicide. This directly challenged the prosecution’s case on abetment.
3. Affidavit of Brother-in-Law — Virendra Singh Senior counsel drew the Court’s attention to the affidavit of Virendra Singh, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. This affidavit — from a member of the deceased’s own family — supported the defence’s version of events, adding significant weight to the alternative narrative.
4. Unnatural Conduct of Deceased’s Parents The statements of the parents of the deceased recorded by the police during investigation were placed before the Court. Senior counsel submitted that the conduct of the parents was unnatural — raising questions about the consistency and reliability of the prosecution’s overall narrative.
5. No Evidence of Abetment The most critical submission was that there was no evidence whatsoever that the applicant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Abetment of suicide requires proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid — none of which was established against the applicant on the material before the Court.
6. Charge-Sheet Filed — Investigation Complete The charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning the applicant’s custodial presence was no longer required for investigative purposes.
7. No Criminal Antecedents The applicant had no prior criminal record — a factor that courts consistently treat as relevant in bail matters.
8. Extended Period of Custody The applicant had been in custody since 19 June 2025 — a period of nearly nine months — pending trial.
State’s Opposition
The learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently opposed bail, highlighting:
- The applicant had made physical relations with the minor prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage
- He subsequently denied to marry her
- The DNA report was positive — establishing biological connection between the applicant and the prosecutrix
The Court’s Decision
Hon’ble Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal, having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits, was inclined to release the applicant on bail. The application was accordingly allowed.
Directions issued by the Court:
- The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court
- The applicant shall remain present before the trial Court on all dates fixed during trial and shall cooperate in trial
- The applicant shall abide by all conditions enumerated under Section 480(3) of the BNSS, 2023
- The order shall remain effective until the end of the trial
- In case of bail jump or breach of any condition, the order shall become ineffective automatically
Legal Significance of This Order
This order raises several important legal principles at the intersection of POCSO law, abetment of suicide, and bail jurisprudence:
① Abetment of Suicide — Requires Proof of Instigation or Intentional Aid Abetment of suicide under Section 107 of the BNS 2023 requires proof that the accused instigated, conspired with, or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide. Mere association, a broken relationship, or the accused’s refusal to marry does not, by itself, constitute abetment. The defence’s submission that there was no evidence of abetment — and that the proximate cause of the suicide was the deceased’s brother’s assault — directly addressed this legal requirement. The Court’s grant of bail reflects its assessment that this gap in the prosecution’s case was a relevant consideration.
② Alternative Proximate Cause — Shifting the Causal Narrative The defence placed before the Court a compelling alternative causal narrative: that the suicide was triggered not by the applicant’s conduct but by the physical assault inflicted on the deceased by her own brother upon discovering the relationship. Where an alternative and credible proximate cause for suicide is established through evidence — including an affidavit by a family member — it significantly weakens the prosecution’s case on abetment at the bail stage.
③ Family Member’s Affidavit Supporting the Defence The affidavit of the deceased’s brother-in-law — Virendra Singh — is a significant piece of evidence. As seen in other cases on this page (including the Kanti Singh matter), affidavits from members of the deceased’s own family that contradict or qualify the prosecution’s narrative carry considerable weight before courts at the bail stage.
④ Unnatural Conduct of Parents — A Factor Worth Noting The submission that the conduct of the deceased’s parents was unnatural — as reflected in their police statements — is a nuanced argument that practitioners handling such cases should be alert to. Inconsistencies or unnatural conduct in the behaviour of key prosecution witnesses are relevant considerations that courts factor in at the bail stage.
⑤ Positive DNA — Establishes Relationship, Not Abetment The State’s reliance on the positive DNA report is significant — but it establishes the existence of a physical relationship, not the offence of abetment of suicide. The Court’s grant of bail despite a positive DNA report reflects a careful distinction between what the forensic evidence proves and what the prosecution must establish to make out the specific charge of abetment.
⑥ Nearly Nine Months in Custody — Proportionality The applicant had been in custody for nearly nine months. In cases where the charge-sheet is filed and trial is pending, extended pre-trial detention without adequate evidentiary basis for the most serious charge — abetment — raises proportionality concerns that courts are entitled to address through bail.
Relevant Legal Provisions
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 483, BNSS 2023 | Regular Bail by High Court |
| Section 480(3), BNSS 2023 | Conditions on Release on Bail |
| Section 107, BNS 2023 | Abetment of Suicide |
| Section 64(2)(m) & (f), BNS 2023 | Aggravated Rape |
| Sections 5(L) & 6, POCSO Act | Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault |
Conclusion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order in Durgesh @ Deepak @ Lalu Dhuliya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC 3126/2026) is an important illustration of how courts approach bail in cases where multiple serious charges are laid — including POCSO and abetment of suicide — but where the evidentiary foundation for the abetment charge is contested by a credible alternative narrative supported by family affidavits. The absence of direct evidence of abetment, the alternative proximate cause argument, the affidavit of the deceased’s brother-in-law, and the extended period of custody collectively created sufficient grounds for bail that the Court accepted. For practitioners handling POCSO and abetment of suicide matters, this order provides valuable guidance on how to structure bail arguments even in the face of a positive DNA report and vehement State opposition.
