1 2025:CGHC:32064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1009 of 2025 Neetu Sahu W/o Shri Gevendra Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bhateli Ward No. 13, P.S. Bhakhara Teh. And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 125/2025 registered at Police Station – New Rajendra Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief, is that a Merg intimation was received at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, which was registered as Merg No. 13/2135 under Section 194 of the Bharatiya RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), concerning the death of Kaveri Sahu, wife of Manoj Sahu. A site inspection and inquest proceedings were carried out, during which it was revealed that the deceased was subjected to continuous mental harassment by her husband, Manoj Sahu, due to his extramarital affair that had been ongoing for five years. On 18 October 2025, Manoj left the matrimonial home without informing anyone. After his departure, Kaveri was allegedly further harassed by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nitu Sahu). Distressed by this prolonged abuse, the deceased ultimately died by suicide, hanging herself. As a result, an FIR was registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case solely because she is the sister of the deceased’s husband (Manoj Sahu). He further submits that the husband of the deceased is in jail. He also submits that she has no connection whatsoever with the alleged incident and has been residing separately with her husband in District Dhamtari since 20.06.2010. The applicant, a married woman and mother of three daughters, was unaware of any personal disputes between her brother and sister-in-law, the deceased. It is submitted that there is no material on record to establish any act of instigation or intentional aid on the part of the applicant that could have led the deceased to take such an extreme step. As per the settled legal position, to attract the offence under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, there must be a clear act of instigation or provocation, along with the necessary mens rea (criminal intent), 3 which is entirely absent in the present case. Even if the prosecution case is taken at face value, it does not disclose any deliberate or active role of the applicant in abetting the commission of suicide. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, it appears that the applicant is a married woman who has been residing separately from the deceased and her in-laws since 20.06.2010 at District Dhamtari, along with her husband and three minor daughters. The allegations against her are general and stem primarily from her relationship as the sister of the deceased’s husband. There is no direct or specific allegation suggesting that the applicant instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. Significantly, no suicide note has been recovered to indicate any role of the applicant in abetting the alleged act. The prosecution has also not produced any evidence to show that the applicant had any interaction with the deceased or was aware of her personal or matrimonial issues. Further the husband of the decease has already 4 been in jail. The applicant has no previous antecedents, is a mother of three young children, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Neetu Sahu, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rahul Dewangan