1 2025:CGHC:3986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6248 of 2025 Anil Kumar Sinha S/o Latkhor Ram Sinha, Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Village - Khas Par, Post - Puri, (Wrongly Mentioned As Puri Post In The Impugned Order) District - Kanker (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - House Officer, Police Station - Chawni, District Durg (C.G.) --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. MCRC No. 6258 of 2025 1 - Kanha Markam Urf Kanhaiya S/o Anil Markam Aged About 19 Years Occupation Student R/o House No. H-06, Jail Colony Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur (C.G.) Present R/o Village Rampur Patel Para Police Station Chharama District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Naveen Nirmalkar S/o Shri Hirendra Nirmalkar Aged About 19 Years Occupation Student R/o Village Boritkala Police Station Purur District Balod (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg District Durg (C.G.) (Sho Police Station Chawni, District- Durg (C.G.) (Particular Of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 The Applicants And The Non-Applicant Is Not Properly Mentioned In The Cause Title Which Is Being Mentioned As Per Charge Sheet) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. Since the above bail applications are arising out of same crime number and same offences so they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Applications under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 251/2025, registered at Police Station -Chawni District - Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5), 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 67-B of Information and Technology Act, 2000. (Section 3(5), 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 67-B of Information and Technology Act, 2000 added during investigation and hence not mentioned in the impugned order and FIR) 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.05.2025, the deceased-Dr. Bodhesh Kumar Rathore, posted as an Ayurvedic doctor on contract at Puri village, PS Charama, District Kanker, committed suicide by hanging at his niece’s husband’s house in Camp-2, Bhilai. During merg inquiry, a suicide note was recovered 3 wherein the deceased named several villagers and others, alleging they had secretly recorded an objectionable video of him with a woman, with whom he had consensual relations. The accused persons allegedly demanded ₹5,00,000/-, threatened to viral the video, physically assaulted him in a village meeting and local journalists published defamatory news. Thereafter, The deceased’s wife submitted a written complaint stating that continuous threats, extortion, public humiliation, and harassment by the named persons drove her husband to commit suicide. The Post-mortem confirmed death due to hanging. Based on the inquiry, aforesaid offences were found made out against the named accused and FIR was registered for investigation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submit that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is contended that the prosecution case rests on the allegation that the deceased, a doctor, was involved in a consensual relationship with one lady, and that certain accused persons allegedly recorded an objectionable video of the two, demanded ₹5,00,000/-, threatened to circulate the said video, assaulted him in a village meeting, and caused defamatory publications in the local media, ultimately leading to his suicide and the leaving of a suicide note. The wife of the deceased lodged a complaint alleging that continuous threats, extortion, and humiliation drove him to take his life. However, it is submitted that the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 BNSS clearly reveal that a village meeting was convened where both the deceased and the lady concerned 4 admitted their relationship, and it was mutually decided that the deceased would provide a sum of money to the lady for her future security. There is no material to suggest that the present applicants ever demanded any amount from the deceased. It is further urged that although the name of applicant Anil Kumar Sinha finds mention in both the FIR and the suicide note, the names of applicants Kanha Markam and Naveen Nirmalkar appear only in the suicide note and not in the FIR and there is no eye-witness account establishing their presence in any such village meeting or at the scene of occurrence. They further submits that other co-accused in the same case have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 981/2025 and 847/2025. On the ground of parity, and in the absence of any substantive evidence indicating the applicants’ direct involvement in abetment of suicide, it is prayed that they too be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicants and submits that the deceased, who was a doctor, involved in a consensual relationship with one lady, and that certain accused persons allegedly recorded an objectionable video of the two, demanded ₹5,00,000/-, threatened to circulate the said video, assaulted him in a village meeting and caused defamatory publications in the local media, ultimately leading to his suicide and the leaving of a suicide note. He further submits that the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint alleging that continuous threats, extortion, and humiliation drove him to take his life. Accordingly, the present applicants are not entitled for grant 5 of bail. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and also considering the post-mortem report and further the fact that the deceased, who was a doctor, involved in a consensual relationship with one lady and that certain accused persons allegedly recorded an objectionable video of the two, demanded ₹5,00,000/-, threatened to circulate the said video, assaulted him in a village meeting and caused defamatory publications in the local media, ultimately leading to his suicide by hanging himself and the leaving of a suicide note from where he named the presents applicants and although the name of applicant Anil Kumar Sinha finds mention in both the FIR and the suicide note and the names of applicants Kanha Markam and Naveen Nirmalkar appear only in the suicide note, not in the FIR and there is no eye-witness account establishing their presence in any such village meeting or at the scene of occurrence and also considering the fact that other co- accused in the same case have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 981/2025 and 847/2025, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly the bail applications are allowed. Let applicants, Anil Kumar Sinha, Kanha Markam urf Kanhaiya and Naveen Nirmalkar, involved in Crime No. 251/2025, registered at Police Station -Chawni District - Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5), 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 6 67-B of Information and Technology Act, 2000. (Section 3(5), 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 67-B of Information and Technology Act, 2000 added during investigation and hence not mentioned in the impugned order and FIR), be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i)The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 7 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberated 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 them 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 Kunal