1 2025:CGHC:54167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8815 of 2025 Madan Lal Dewangan S/o Shri Tekram Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o Vill. Sirri, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Kharora, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.11.2025 1. This is the Second bail application 8led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 549/2024 registered at Police Station – Kharora, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Sections 80 R/w 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 1020 of 2025 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2025. 3. As per the prosecution story, a merg intimation was received by the concerned police, and thereafter an FIR was registered stating that on 24.07.2024 at about 3:00 p.m., the deceased, namely Dineshwari ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.07 14:48:07 +0530 2 Dewangan, had consumed kerosene oil and other poisonous substances, and during treatment, she died on 26.07.2024. During the merg investigation, it was revealed that the husband of the deceased and her sister-in-law (the present applicants) had raised a dispute regarding dowry and had also physically assaulted the deceased, due to which she committed suicide. Therefore, the present applicants were arrested by the concerned police authorities without any justi8able reason. After investigation, the charge-sheet was 8led before the jurisdictional JMFC, and the trial has already commenced. Hence, this bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application 8led on behalf of the applicant. The 8rst bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2025 in MCRC No. 1020 of 2025 on merits. He submits that there is no evidence with regard to any physical or mental torture in@icted upon the deceased by the present applicant, and the instant crime has been registered merely on the basis of presumptions drawn by the concerned police authorities. He further submits that the out of 19 witnesses cited, only 9 witnesses have been examined till date and their statements recorded. Therefore, there is a likelihood of considerable delay in the completion of the trial. He submits that none of the witnesses in their statements have disclosed any speci8c fact regarding the demand of dowry or making any prior complaint before any authority. Hence, the allegation of cruelty on account of demand of dowry is itself untenable. He also submits that as per the deposition of PW-1 (Videshi Ram Dewangan), the father of the deceased, in paragraphs 10, 11, and 12, he has clearly stated that his daughter was never subjected to any demand of dowry nor was she ever harassed by the present applicants or their family members. He submits that as per the deposition of PW-3 (Dujram Dewangan), the brother of the deceased, 3 in paragraph 6, it has been categorically stated that neither did the deceased intimate any fact regarding physical assault, nor did they make any complaint before the police authorities and as per the deposition of PW-4 (Bhuneshwari), the sister of the deceased, in paragraphs 5 and 6, it has been categorically stated that the deceased never intimated any fact regarding any physical assault. He submits that as per the deposition of PW-5 (Ramkumar), the brother-in-law of the deceased, in paragraph 5, it has been categorically stated that the deceased was never subjected to any demand of dowry in his presence, and the said facts were only heard from others. He submits that as per the deposition of PW-8 (Babulal Kurre), who conducted the entire inquest proceedings, in paragraph 4, no injury was found on the body of the deceased and upon perusal of the entire depositions, it is evident that it is a simple case of suicide by the deceased herself. He submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 04.10.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application 8led on behalf of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been 8led before the competent Court in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that out of 19 witnesses cited, only 9 witnesses have been examined so far and their statements recorded, and that none of the witnesses have disclosed any speci8c fact regarding the demand of dowry or the making of any prior complaint before any authority, further considering the deposition of PW-8 (Babulal Kurre), who conducted the entire inquest proceedings, wherein it is stated in paragraph 4 that no injury was found on the body of the deceased, furthermore, as the 4 applicant has been languishing in jail since 04.10.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. The Second Bail Application of the Applicant – Madan Lal Dewangan, involved in Crime No. 549/2024 registered at Police Station – Kharora, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Sections 80 R/w 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his 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 8le an undertaking to the e=ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 8xed 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 8xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suEcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 8xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against his, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before 5 the trial court on the dates 8xed 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 suEcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against his in accordance with law. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the receipt of a certi8ed copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10.OEce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek