Indore News: Suicide Video Alone Not Enough Ground To Deny Bail, Rules Indore Bench Of MP High Court

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to four businessmen accused of abetting the suicide of a debtor, holding that a suicide note in the form of a video clip cannot by itself be a sufficient ground to deny them bail.

Justice Subodh Abhyankar, while deciding a batch of bail applications arising out of the same case, observed that the matter involved disputed facts surrounding monetary transactions, and custodial interrogation of the accused was not necessary.

The case relates to the death of Mahendra, who, on July 18, allegedly consumed poison in front of the District Hospital in Indore. Three days earlier, he had recorded a video naming several cloth traders as responsible for his death, alleging harassment over repayment of loans. The clip was circulated on social media.

Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution and the complainant’s counsel argued that the video amounted to a suicide note and no further proof of abetment was needed. However, the defence contended that Mahendra had been embezzling funds, had even absconded earlier, and that the video was a deliberate attempt to pressurise his creditors.

Accepting the defence arguments in principle, the Court held: “Merely because the deceased had left a suicide note in the form of a video clip would not be a reason to deny the facility of bail to the applicants, who otherwise have no criminal antecedents, and the amount which they had given to the deceased was in the course of their business only.”

The HC granted anticipatory bail to Jitendra Chawla, Hemant Verma, and Arvind Parmar, and regular bail to Antim alias Kamal Jain, who was already in custody since July 21. Each has been directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with a solvent surety.

The order effectively underscores that while a suicide note may have evidentiary value during trial, its mere existence cannot automatically justify denial of bail when other circumstances indicate the need for judicial caution.