Supreme Court Grants Bail in Case Involving Death by Anaesthetic Injection; High Court Order Set Aside

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria heard the appeal arising from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's refusal to grant regular bail to a dentist accused in a death initially treated as suicide. The appeal challenged the High Court order dated 06.10.2025 rejecting bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR/Crime No.105/2025 registered at Shahpura Police Station, Bhopal.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the Trial Court might impose. The judges noted that the FIR was registered for abetment to commit suicide but that the material on record did not prima facie show injuries that caused death; rather, initial forensic material indicated death from Atracurium Besylate injection and the deceased was an anaesthetist. The Court directed that the appellant shall cooperate with the Trial Court and shall not influence witnesses. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 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." The Court further emphasised: "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."

Background

The appellant, a practising dentist in M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, married the deceased, Dr. Richa Pandey, on 04.12.2024. The deceased was found unresponsive in her room on the morning of 21.03.2025; needle pricks were observed on her left hand and she was declared dead at hospital. An FIR was lodged on 24.03.2025 by the deceased’s brother, initially treating the incident as suicide allegedly caused by persistent harassment and suspicion of an extra-marital relationship involving a nurse named Mahi. The appellant was arrested on 25.03.2025 and a charge-sheet was later filed on 05.06.2025; charges were framed on 07.07.2025 under Sections 108 and 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, with alternative charges under Sections 103 and 85 of the BNS.

The State relied on recovery from the deceased’s phone of a two‑page handwritten note, WhatsApp chats, screenshots and an audio recording in which the deceased referred to marital discord and complained "You only give importance to Mahi... You will see my dead face tomorrow morning." The post‑mortem recorded five ante‑mortem injuries, including needle‑prick marks and a subscalp haematoma; a query report opined that certain marks could have been caused by syringes and some injuries could be self‑inflicted, while one contusion appeared to be days old. The family’s initial case diary statements did not mention dowry demands; such allegations emerged in subsequent statements. Counsel for the appellant, Shri Vivek K. Tankha, argued that there was no material amounting to abetment, murder or dowry death and that the appellant was not a hardened criminal; counsel for the State, Shri Sridhar Potaraju, and counsel for the complainant, Shri Praveen Chaturvedi, maintained that the facts prima facie indicated murder by injection and supported dowry‑related charges.

The High Court had dismissed the regular bail application on the ground of the seriousness of offences. The Supreme Court found the totality of facts and the nature of the material to be such that bail was permissible pending trial. The appeal was allowed, the High Court order dated 06.10.2025 was set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail subject to conditions to be fixed by the Trial Court. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not prejudice the trial on merits.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 446 OF 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No.16817 of 2025) Case Title: Abhijit Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Vivek K. Tankha, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Sridhar Potaraju, Additional Advocate General (for State); Shri Praveen Chaturvedi (for Respondent No.2)