1 2025:CGHC:35565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1085 of 2025 Navratan Sahu S/o Nandu Sahu Aged About 50 Years (Aadhar No. 2428 0992 0976), Present R/o Village- Sarwani, Tahsil And Police Station - Sakti, Revenue District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Sakti, Revenue District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2025 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 his arrest in connection with Crime No. 198/2025 registered at Police Station – Sakti, Revenue District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of Indian Penal Code,1860. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief is that on 01.04.2025, upon receiving information regarding the untimely death of one Mehattar RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Ram Sahu (deceased) by hanging, a Merg Intimation bearing No. 23/2025 was registered. During the course of the Merg inquiry, it was revealed that the deceased had two sons, namely Chitendra Sahu and Jitendra Sahu. It was further found that the elder son, Chitendra Sahu, had expired in the previous year and his widow, Smt. Vimla Bai Sahu, along with her three children, was residing separately in the same matrimonial house with the deceased and his younger son, Jitendra Sahu. The deceased had executed a registered gift deed in respect of 2.48 acres of land in favour of the children, namely Lokesh and Bhupesh, of his younger son Jitendra Sahu. Due to this, a social meeting was convened by Vimla Bai Sahu, wherein, apart from her, certain members of the society, namely Yadhram Sahu, Man Bhulau Sahu, and the present applicant, were also present. It is alleged that in the said meeting, pressure was exerted upon the deceased to further partition his property, which purportedly led the deceased to commit suicide by hanging. Based on the said Merg report, an FIR bearing Crime No. 198/2025 was registered against Vimla Bai Sahu, Yadhram Sahu, Man Bhulau Sahu, and the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. Thereafter, upon learning that the police authorities were attempting to arrest him in connection with the aforesaid crime, the applicant preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the learned trial Court, which, however, came to be rejected vide order dated 09.07.2025, thereby necessitating the filing of the present bail application. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that no offence, much less an offence under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, is made out against the applicant; the essential ingredients of abetment are absent in the prosecution case. He further submits that the present case arises purely out of a family property dispute between the deceased’s two sons, Chitendra and Jitendra. After Chitendra’s death, the deceased executed a gift deed of 2.48 acres in favour of Jitendra’s children, which was objected to by Vimla Bai before the Revenue authorities. He also submits that a social meeting was convened on 28.03.2025 only to resolve this dispute amicably, where the deceased assured a share to Vimla Bai. Subsequent domestic discord with Jitendra allegedly created an unhealthy atmosphere, and three days later, on 01.04.2025, the deceased committed suicide. The applicant neither harassed nor instigated the deceased; thus, no prima facie case of abetment is made out against him. He further submits that the other co-accused persons, namely, Yadram Sahu and Vimla Bai Sahu have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 965/2025 and 973/2025, vide orders dated 04.07.2025 and 04.07.2025 respectively. Therefore, he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State, opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case that in the present case, the other co-accused persons, namely, Yadram Sahu and Vimla Bai Sahu have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 965/2025 and 973/2025, vide orders dated 04.07.2025 and 04.07.2025 respectively, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Navratan Sahu, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he 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 him 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 5 each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his 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 himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rahul Dewangan