1 2025:CGHC:39607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4889 of 2025 Jaynarayan Sonwani S/o Punnilal Sonwani Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Pand, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Office, Police of Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 271/2024, registered at Police Station : Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the incident, the present applicant along with his deceased wife was RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 scheduled to visit Village Samari (Bharari). After having lunch, the applicant stepped out of the house for a while. During this time, the deceased was reportedly engaged in a phone conversation. Upon the applicant’s return, he found the door locked from inside. Despite repeatedly knocking and calling out to his wife, there was no response. Eventually, the door was broken open, and the deceased was found hanging. The applicant immediately pulled her down and informed his parents. While being taken to the hospital, she was declared dead on the way. Based on the complaint lodged, an offence under Sections 304-B/34 of the IPC was registered at Police Station Sakri. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, and their marriage was solemnized on 07.06.2023. It is submitted that only vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. As per the prosecution case and the statements of the parents of the deceased, it is alleged that there was a demand for a motorcycle by the applicant and his family members, and due to such alleged harassment, the deceased committed suicide. However, the cause of death, as per the post- mortem report, is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark, there is no other antemortem injury on the body. There is no dying declaration, no suicide note, and no eyewitness to the alleged incident. He further submits that co-accused persons namely, Smt. Satrupa Bai, Ku. Annu, and Punni Lal, have already 3 been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRCA No. 599/2024 vide order dated 12.06.2024. He also submits that the present applicant is in judicial custody since 01.06.2024 and that the conclusion of the trial may take considerable time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegations against the present applicant are of a very serious nature, involving the unnatural death of his wife under suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage. The deceased was found hanging inside her matrimonial home, and the FIR under Sections 304-B and 34 of IPC clearly reflects the gravity of the offence, which attracts a strong presumption of dowry death. It is further submitted that the statements of witnesses and the circumstantial evidence collected during the investigation suggest mental and emotional cruelty inflicted upon the deceased, which ultimately led to her death. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant being general and vague, the cause of death being asphyxia due to antemortem hanging as per the post-mortem report, and there being no dying 4 declaration, suicide note, or any eyewitness account of the incident, and further taking into account that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 599/2024 vide order dated 12.06.2024, and also considering that the applicant is in jail since 01.06.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Jaynarayan Sonwani, involved in Crime No. 271/2024, registered at Police Station : Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing 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 her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan