1 2025:CGHC:46525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7260 of 2025 Narendra Nishad @ Sonu S/o Chaitan Nishad Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Bahlidih, Police Station- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.09.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 21/2025, registered at Police Station : Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant and deceased Shweta Nishad were in a love affair and had performed a RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 love marriage, after which they lived together as husband and wife. The deceased’s family members were unhappy with the marriage and severed all relations with her. On 21.12.2024, the deceased spoke to her father, Gaurishankar Nishad, over the phone and informed him that the applicant used to beat her and suspected her character. The next day, on 22.12.2024, the deceased allegedly set herself on fire. She was initially admitted to Community Health Centre, Baramkela, for primary treatment and later referred to K.G.H. Hospital, Raigarh, where she was declared dead. Initially, a Merg No. 47/2024 was registered, and after inquiry, an FIR bearing Crime No. 21/2025 was registered against the applicant under Section 108 of the B.N.S. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that there are no specific allegations against the applicant regarding harassment of the deceased. The applicant and the deceased had a love marriage in the year 2022, and since then, they had been living together as husband and wife, and out of their wedlock, a child was born. It is further submitted that there is no suicide note, no dying declaration, and no eyewitness to the incident. The deceased herself poured kerosene oil and set herself on fire, and at no point did the applicant abet, instigate, or provoke her to commit such an act. It is contended that the essential ingredients of instigation are completely absent in this case. He also submits that the present applicant is in judicial custody since 3 28.02.2025 and the conclusion of the trial may take considerable time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, as the deceased was his wife, and she died an unnatural death within the matrimonial home. It is submitted that just a day before the incident, the deceased had spoken to her father and informed him that the applicant used to beat her and cast aspersions on her character. This statement clearly indicates continuous harassment and mental cruelty inflicted upon the deceased by the applicant. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the allegations against the applicant pertain to the unfortunate incident wherein the deceased set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene oil, resulting in her death. There is no suicide note, dying declaration, or any eyewitness account to indicate that the applicant instigated, abetted, or provoked the deceased to take such an extreme step. The FIR also does not disclose any specific allegations of continuous harassment or cruelty on the part of the 4 applicant and also considering that the applicant is in jail since 28.02.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Narendra Nishad @ Sonu, involved in Crime No. 21/2025, registered at Police Station : Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 108 of Bharatiya 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 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 her 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 her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on 5 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 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him 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 Rahul Dewangan