Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38275 (CHH)

VINIT KUMAR SONI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRCA/1204/2025 · 2025-08-06

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:39519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1204 of 2025 Vinit Kumar Soni S/o Vinod Soni Aged About 40 Years R/o Mahatma Gandhi Road, Infront Of Boys School, Police Station-City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Mahila Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Varunendra Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2025 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. 06/2025 registered at Police Station – Mahila Police Station - Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3) and 85 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the FIR lodged at Mahila Police Station, Ambikapur, District Surguja, the complainant, Punam Soni, who is the wife of the present applicant, has alleged that she was married to the applicant on 28.11.2023 at Balodabazar, and thereafter began residing at her matrimonial home. However, after a few months, the applicant and his family members allegedly began harassing her and making demands for dowry, which eventually led to her returning to her parental home at Ambikapur. She has also alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family. Based on her complaint, the police have registered Crime No. 06/2025 against the applicant, for offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.). Hence, the present application has been filed seeking grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is the husband of the complainant and that the dispute arises out of matrimonial differences between the parties. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2023, and efforts for reconciliation were made at the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra, Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. During the mediation proceedings, the applicant expressed his willingness to reside with his wife, however, the complainant was not interested to continue the matrimonial relationship, as is evident from the order sheet of the said proceedings dated 29.03.2025. A copy of the 3 same is filed and annexed herewith as Annexure A/3. 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 dispute appears to have arisen out of matrimonial differences between the applicant and the complainant, who are legally wedded spouses married in the year 2023, and further considering that efforts for reconciliation were made at the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra, Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, where the applicant expressed his willingness to reside with the complainant, but the complainant was not interested to continue the matrimonial relationship, as evident from the report dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure A/3), the applicant has no previous antecedents, 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 – Vinit Kumar Soni, 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:- 4 (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