Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In the recent Bhopal Dowry Death Case that shook the nation, the Single Bench of Avanindra Kumar Singh, J., disposed of the anticipatory bail application filed by the husband as withdrawn with liberty to the accused to surrender before the trial court and file a regular bail application. The Court also issued notice to the mother-in-law on the State’s application to quash her anticipatory bail.
Background
The victim, a 33-year-old woman, was allegedly found hanging at her matrimonial home in Bhopal’s Katara Hills area on May 12. Her family accused her in-laws of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide, while the in-laws contended that she was battling drug addiction. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against her husband and mother-in-law under Sections 80(2), 85, and 3(5) Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (2023).
The victim’s husband filed an anticipatory bail application before the Court after absconding but then sought withdrawal of the same with liberty to surrender and file a regular bail application before the trial court.
In the order dated 22 May, the Court opined that the correct procedure in such cases is that the accused may surrender before the trial court if he apprehends torture by the police or otherwise before the Investigating Officer (IO). If he surrenders before the IO, then he may formally arrest the accused as per prevailing law.
Noting the procedure for surrender before the police and before the trial court, the Court disposed of the application as withdrawn with liberty to the accused to surrender before the trial court and file a regular bail application. The trial court shall send a copy of the surrender application to the concerned Station House Officer, who shall produce the case diary and make an appropriate application in this regard. The Court further directed that if he surrenders before the IO of this case in Katara Hills Police Station, Bhopal, then the IO shall conduct proceedings as per the law.
The State filed the present application for quashing of the impugned order whereby the trial court granted anticipatory bail to the mother-in-law.
Analysis
The Court stated that since the notice was yet to be issued, the humdust notice shall be served to the mother-in-law, returnable on or before 25 May. The Court also took note of the State’s contention that the anticipatory bail was granted in a very hurried manner, as the death occurred on 12 May at night, the post-mortem was conducted on 14 May, the anticipatory bail application was filed on 14 May, and the same was allowed on 15 May.
Thereafter, vide order dated 25 May, the Court granted time to the mother-in-law to file a response before the next date of hearing and directed her to supply a copy of the reply to the State.
The matter was listed for 27 May 2026 along with the criminal application filed by the victim’s father.
[State of Madhya Pradesh v. Giribala Singh, MCRC No. 24475 of 2026, decided on 22-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Advocate General Prashant Singh, Additional Advocate General Harpreet Singh Ruprah, Government Advocate Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for the State L.A.S. Baghel
