1 2025:CGHC:35545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4750 of 2025 Loknath Parmar S/o Yadram Parmar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bardula, Police Station Kosir, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kosir, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23/07/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 95/2025 registered at Police Station- Koshir, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prima facie evidence emerging from the investigation suggests that the applicant Loknath Parmar, along with the co-accused, subjected the deceased Rupa KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Parmar to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry, which ultimately led to her death under suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage. Prima facie, the records indicate that the marriage between accused Loknath Parmar and deceased Rupa Parmar was solemnized on 21.02.2021. Although there is material on record showing that a social meeting took place between the deceased’s family and the accused’s family in the past, it is also evident that after the meeting, the deceased Rupa Parmar continued to reside at her matrimonial home. Further, it is established that Rupa Parmar (deceased) died on 21.09.2023, whereas on the basis of merg intimaton, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged much later, on 23.03.2025. Therafter, an offence has been registered against the applicant/accused Loknath Parmar, along with co-accused Yadram Parmar, Smt. Kaushilya Parmar, Gautam Parmar, and Smt. Lalita, at Police Station Kosir, under Crime No. 95/2025, for offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in crime in question. He further submits that no ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC has been established against the applicant, the police has falsely been implicated to the present applicant only on the basis of suspicious. The Family Court ought to have considered that the merg intimation got registered by the Police on 17-10-2023 and since the police was not having any proper ground to registered the offence against the present applicant and other person, the offence was registered 3 by the Police on 23-03-2025 upon the pressure of the family members of deceased as they were suspecting unnatural death of deceased. He further submits that it is also important to mention here that in the FIR also the police have recorded that in the postmortem report, the doctor who conducted the postmortem have not given any clear opinion on the reason of death and the Bishara was sent for FSL examination and after receiving the report of FSL, it is stated in the report that there is no chemical poison in the Bishara A.B.C. and the heart, liver, kidney and parts of spleen was also sent for examination to the Medical College Raigarh and the Histopathology report by the Specialist Raigarh have also not given any clear opinion about the same, which also makes it clear that there is no any unnatural death have happened to the deceased for which the applicant has been implicated in the present crime. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that one query was also made to the postmortem report, upon which the doctor given his opinion that due to sudden cardiac arrest, the deceased died. Though the deceased Rupa Parmar died due to some natural reason, but the parental family members of deceased made pressure for registering the FIR against the applicant and his family members as the deceased died within few years of marriage, cause of which the present FIR has been registered against the applicant and his family members, whereas all the other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court. He further submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no previous criminal 4 antecedent and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that prima facie evidence collected during the investigation reveals a strong case against the applicant/accused Loknath Parmar. The deceased Rupa Parmar was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry, which ultimately led to her suspicious death within seven years of marriage. However, the viscera report indicates no presence of poisonous substance in her body. Accordingly, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 27.04.2025 and the fact that in the present case, all other co- accused persons have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and further from perusal of viscera report of the deceased, it indicates that no presence of poisonous substance in her body and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case but the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, hence, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. 8. Let the applicant – Loknath Parmar, involved in Crime No. 95/2025 registered at Police Station- Koshir, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 5 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion 6 of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dirurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal