Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in High-Profile Abetment of Suicide Case
Court Rules Suicide Note Alone Insufficient for Denying Bail; Applicants Released
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, under the bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar, delivered a pivotal judgment on September 27, 2025, granting anticipatory and regular bail to four individuals accused in a high-profile abetment of suicide case. The case, involving the suicide of Mahendra S/o Kantilal, had stirred significant public and media attention due to the allegations and the accompanying video clip naming the accused.
The applicants, Jitendra, Hemant Verma, Arvind Parma, and Antim @ Kamal Jain, were alleged to have driven Mahendra to suicide over financial disputes. Mahendra had recorded a video before his death, accusing the applicants of harassment due to unpaid loans, which was circulated widely on social media.
Represented by advocates Varun Mishra, Shubhangi Solanki, and Laveesh Sethia, the defense argued that the allegations were false and stemmed from a monetary dispute rather than criminal intent. They contended that Mahendra had defaulted on payments and had a history of financial mismanagement, evidenced by his temporary disappearance from Indore. The defense further argued that the video was a manipulative tool to exert pressure on their clients, who were established cloth merchants with no criminal records.
The prosecution, represented by G.A. Vishal Singh Panwar and advocate Satanand Choubay for the objector, opposed the bail applications, asserting that the video clip constituted sufficient evidence of abetment.
In his judgment, Justice Abhyankar emphasized the absence of substantial evidence beyond the suicide note, declaring that it alone could not justify the denial of bail. He noted the disputed nature of the case and the absence of any criminal history on the part of the accused. The court ruled that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and granted anticipatory bail to Jitendra, Hemant Verma, and Arvind Parma, and regular bail to Antim @ Kamal Jain, under specified conditions.
The decision reflects the court's cautious approach in balancing the rights of the accused against the gravity of the allegations, underscoring the need for substantial evidence in cases of abetment of suicide.
Bottom Line:
Grant of anticipatory and regular bail in cases of alleged abetment of suicide - Mere existence of a suicide note or video clip naming the accused as responsible for the death, without other substantial evidence, cannot be the sole ground to deny bail.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 482, 483; M.P. Protection of Debtors Act, 1937; Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Jitendra Chawla v. State of M.P., (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2785631
