Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42991 (CHH)

INDRAJEET YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRCA/1410/2025 · 2025-09-11

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:46892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1410 of 2025 • Indrajeet Yadav S/o Jeetlal Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Near Shanti Kirana Store, Kohaka, Bhilai, Tehsil And Distt. Durg C.G. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jamul, Distt.- Durg C.G. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. P.Chetan Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/09/2025 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 his arrest in connection with Crime No.648/2025 registered at Police Station – Jamul District-Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections – 306, 34 of IPC. 2. The case of prosecution is that, F.I.R. has been registered against the Present applicant and 2 other co-accused for the alleged offence of abetment of suicide, on a complaint made by the deceased's brother on 03.02.2024 at 5 PM in evening inside kitchen of his house, with whom the applicant and one another co-accused (Pradeep Yadav) VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.09.15 17:42:36 +0530 2 have come to an agreement to purchase their land with consideration amounting to Rs 35,00,000/- on 27.10.2021, in which Complainant's brother was also having share who committed suicide, who was also suffering from piles and due to which he was also in depression but the agreement has been delayed due to noncompliance of the condition that a 25 feet approach road has not be constructed by seller/complainant before registry of the said land, which has been duly informed by the applicant and his co-partner (Pradeep Yadav) through a legal notice dated 10.01.2024 sent through his advocate, in return to which complainant and his deceased brother had jointly replied dated 24.01.2024 that now current price of the land has increased and now if they want to complete the the land, new agreement to purchase consideration amount has to be paid Rs 45,00,000/- which was totally inappropriate and illegal, and subsequently the complainant's brother had committed suicide due to his illness and mental condition of depression in kitchen of his house, at 5 pm evening on 03.02.2024 but for this incident applicant and 2 other person has been made accused and an FIR has been registered bearing no. 648/2025 as P.S. Jamul Distt Durg (C.G.) against Applicant. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there was some dispute in respect of property selling between the applicant and deceased, on account of which deceased committed suicide by hanging. In the present case, there is one suicide note was left by the deceased, in which general allegation levelled against the applicant, investigation and trial is likely to take 3 quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and no other antemortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased except antemortem hanging and in the suicide note, the allegations levelled against the present applicant are general, further the 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. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Indrajeet Yadav 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:- (a) he 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of 4 his 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) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali