1 2025:CGHC:48350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7541 of 2025 Shashibhushan Bariha S/o Tikelal, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Dongripali, Police Station - Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/09/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 38/2025 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Burla Police Station, Orissa, lodged a merg intimation on 06.07.2023, stating that the deceased, Kanti Sidar, had died under suspicious KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 circumstances. The post-mortem report revealed that the cause of death was compression of the neck with a ligature material. However, as per the merg report, the death was shown to have occurred due to electric shock. Subsequently, on 25.04.2025, an FIR was registered. A query report was also submitted by Dr. Kajal Kiran Swai, wherein she opined that the death of the deceased was due to compression of the neck with a ligature material, as mentioned in the post-mortem report, and not due to manual strangulation. On 25.04.2025, the memorandum statement of the applicant was recorded, wherein he stated that he had strangulated the neck of the deceased with a cotton chunni, which was thereafter recovered. The said chunni was sent to the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination for further query. In her query report, the doctor opined that no foreign body was found on the ligature material examined, and the ligature mark described in the post-mortem report could have been caused by the examined ligature material, i.e., cotton chunni. The undated statements of the family members of the deceased were also recorded by the police. Their statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were further recorded before the Magistrate, and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and the marriage between them was solemnized only five months prior to the incident. It is submitted that the deceased allegedly died due to 3 electrocution and immediately thereafter, on 06.07.2023, a merg intimation was registered, whereas the incident itself had occurred on 05.07.2023. It is further submitted that after an inordinate delay of about one year and nine months, an FIR came to be registered merely on the basis of suspicion arising out of the said merg information. In the inquest report, the cause of death was noted as electrocution. However, in the post-mortem report, it was observed that the cause of death was compression of the neck with a ligature material, but it was not a case of manual strangulation. Subsequently, in the query report, it was opined that the death of the deceased could have been caused by strangulation with a dupatta (chunni). It is submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 25.04.2025. The charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that from perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the present applicant/accused is the husband of the deceased, against whom Crime No. 38/2025 under Section 304-B IPC has been registered. Investigation reveals consistent statements of the deceased’s family members and other witnesses that the accused was harassing his wife for dowry of ₹2,00,000/- and a motorcycle. The post-mortem report from BSS Medical College, Burla, establishes death by strangulation under abnormal circumstances, clearly ruling out 4 natural or accidental death. Further, in his own memorandum, the accused has admitted to strangulating his wife on suspicion of her character. The charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is pending at the stage of charge. At this stage, the plea of innocence raised by the applicant is a matter of trial and cannot be a ground for bail. Considering the heinous nature of the offence, the incriminating evidence collected, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses if released, the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant and further the fact that the FIR was registered after an inordinate delay for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered, as well as the fact that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained either from the post-mortem report or the subsequent query report and also considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, this Court is of the view that, without commenting on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let the Applicant -Shashibushan Bariha, involved in Crime No. 38/2025 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 304- B of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court 5 concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, 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 6 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal