1 2025:CGHC:48335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7591 of 2025 1. Durgesh Dwivedi S/o Late Shri Chintaram Dwivedi Aged About 56 Years Residents Of- Brahmanpara, Ghumka, Police Station- Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Smt. Bharti Dwivedi W/o Shri Durgesh Dwivedi Aged About 55 Years Residents Of- Brahmanpara Ghumka, Police Station - Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Public Prosecutor Distt- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-Applicants For Applicants :Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pranav Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State :Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.09 .202 5 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 34/2025, registered at Police Station – Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.19 19:58:31 +0530 2 85 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The story of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 22/03/2025, the deceased committed suicide. It was submitted on behalf of the applicants/accused that they are innocent and have not committed any offence. The deceased had an illicit relationship with another man named Sonu Dubey, with whom she frequently communicated over mobile phone. On the date of the incident, she was caught red- handed by her husband while talking to Sonu Dubey on the phone. Upon being confronted and told that the matter would be discussed with her family. members, she feared that her illicit relationship would be exposed. Out of this fear, she committed suicide. There are total four accused in the matter, one of the co- accused has been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court. The accused have no prior criminal record. The applicants says and submits that they have been falsely implicated in the crime, as they have not committed any offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother- in-law of the deceased (Soma Dwivedi). It is pointed out that the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 696/2025 vide order dated 09.05.2025, whereas the applicants' (father-in-law and mother-in-law) earlier application for anticipatory bail was rejected. It is submitted that there is no dying declaration or eye-witness in this case. Although the deceased is said to have suffered ante-mortem injuries, there is no specific allegation directly attributing the same to 3 the present applicants. The husband of the deceased is already in jail. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents. The charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicants have been in custody since 03.09.2025. He submits that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, and the fact that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, further the sister-in-law (Nanad), namely, Shweta Dwivedi of the deceased has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 696/2025 vide order dated 09.05.2025, whereas the applicants' (father-in-law and mother-in-law) earlier application for anticipatory bail was rejected, also considering the fact that there is no dying declaration or eye-witness in this case, although the deceased is said to have suffered ante-mortem injuries, there is no specific allegation directly attributing the same to the present applicants and the husband of the deceased is already in jail, the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicants have been in custody since 03.09.2025, this Court is 4 of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant Nos. 1 and 2 - Durgesh Dwivedi and Smt. Bharti Dwivedi, respectively involved in Crime No. 34/2025, registered at Police Station – Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 85 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his 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 BNSS. is issued 5 and the applicants 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 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 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 them 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 Preeti