Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38469 (CHH)

RAJKUMARI SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/6193/2025 · 2025-08-05

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:39140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6193 of 2025 Rajkumari Sahu W/o Tejram Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o House No. L-8, Rani Durgawati Ward, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Amlidih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State. : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 125/2025 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 108 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution, a Merg intimation was received at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar and was registered as Merg No. 13/2135 under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), concerning the death of the deceased, Kaveri Sahu, wife of Manoj Sahu. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.07 19:42:05 +0530 2 A site inspection and inquest proceedings were conducted. It was revealed that the deceased, Kaveri Sahu, was subjected to persistent mental harassment by her husband, Manoj Sahu, due to his extramarital affair which had been ongoing for the past five years. On 18.10.2025, Manoj Sahu abandoned the marital home without informing anyone. Following his departure, Kaveri was further harassed by her mother-in- law (the present applicant) and sister-in-law (Nitu Sahu). Overwhelmed by the continued abuse, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Consequently, an FIR was registered against them. A copy of the fir is annexed herewith as Annexure a/2. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. He submits that the applicant has never been involved in the commission of any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The allegations levelled against her are vague and omnibus in nature, and do not inspire any confidence. He further submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased, and the marriage of the applicant’s son with the deceased was solemnized about 12–13 years ago. The deceased committed suicide due to her suspicion of her husband’s alleged extramarital affair. It is also submitted that the co-accused, namely, Neetu Sahu, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1009 of 2025, vide order dated 10.07.2025, and the present applicant has been in judicial custody since 19.06.2025. As the conclusion of the trial may take some time, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, and taking into account the fact that the applicant is a woman and the mother-in-law of the deceased, and that the marriage between the deceased and the applicant’s son took place about 12–13 years ago, further considering that the main allegation pertains to the alleged extramarital affair of the husband of the deceased which led to the suicide, and the role attributed to the present applicant appears to be general and omnibus in nature, further the fact that the co-accused, namely, Neetu Sahu, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1009 of 2025, vide order dated 10.07.2025, moreover, the fact that though the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court in the present case, the applicant is aged about 60 years and being a lady has been languishing in jail since 19.06.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant – Rajkumari Sahu, involved in Crime No. 125/2025 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 108 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 she 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 4 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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 her, 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 her in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek