##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT LAHOTI

th

ON THE 18 OF AUGUST, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34602 of 2026 VANDANA CHATURVEDI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Dhiresh Singh Dubey - Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Anchan Pandey, P.L. for the respondent/State.

ORDER This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Crime No.257/2026 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Rewa, for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 103(1) & 3(5) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main accused in the present case is Ashwant Chaturvedi, who during his interrogation, stated that his brother-in-law Umakant Shukla @ Pankaj accompanied the co- accused Ashwant Singh and at the insistence of co-accused Vivek Chaturvedi who was having inimical terms with the deceased Anoop Sen conspired to kill deceased Anoop Sen and; accordingly, on 18.05.2026, co-accused Ashwant Singh accompanied the deceased to his Village where on 19.06.2026 alongwith co-accused Pankaj committed murder of the deceased by throttling. The co-accused Ashwant Chaturvedi kept the motorcycle and mobile of the deceased at his house and concealed the number plate of the motorcycle.

3. It is also borne out from the record that the mother of the deceased Smt. Anita Sen gave statement under Section 161 to the Police that her son Anoop was working as Supervisor in ASS Security Agency and Directors of that Agency are the co-accused Vivek Chaturvedi, the present applicant as well as co-accused Ashwant Chaturvedi. On 18.05.2026, the deceased went to the Security Agency job and did not return till night and his mobile phone got switched off and in the CCTV camera of the relevant place, the deceased was found with co-accused Ashwant Chaturvedi. Thereafter, the mother of the deceased further stated that she went to inquire about her son to the Security Agency where the co-accused Vivek Chaturvedi met her but he did not disclose the whereabouts of the deceased and; therefore, she has an apprehension that the Directors of the Security Agency must have committed murder of the deceased and accordingly the investigation commenced. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that so far as the present applicant is concerned, she is the wife of co-accused Vivek Chaturvedi. Co-accused Ashwant Chaturvedi in his memorandum has only stated about the other co-accused in relation to the conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased. So far as present applicant is concerned, there is no iota of evidence against her except the fact that she is the wife of co-accused Vivek Chaturvedi. No incriminating evidence so far is available against her.

No statement of any person has been recorded which show the culpability of the applicant. Nothing has been recovered from her house. Though this is a case of murder but bereft of any evidence against her. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.

3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submits that looking to the gravity of the offence, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

5. As per the prosecution, it is a case where one Anoop Sen was murder by the co-accused. However, so far as the present applicant is concerned, there is no iota of evidence against her in the entire case diary. No incriminating material has cropped up during the course of the investigation. Applicant has been implicated only because of the fact that she is the wife of co-accused Vivek Chaturvedi who is the Director of the Security Agency where the deceased was working and only on the basis of suspicion, she has been implicated in the present c