1 2025:CGHC:30577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 965 of 2025 Yadram Sahu S/o Late Shodhram Sahu, Aged About 53 Years R/o. Village Sarwani (Sa.), Tehsil, Police Station And District Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Kashish Saluja, Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Bareth, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.07.2025 1. This 8rst anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 has been 8led by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 198/2025 registered at Police Station – Sakti, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.05 14:50:13 +0530 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident occurred on 01.04.2025. The F.I.R. was lodged by the son of the deceased, namely Jitendra Sahu, alleging that due to harassment by the present applicant and the family members (i.e., the widow of Chitendra) for a share in the property, Mahetter Ram Sahu committed suicide by hanging himself. It has been alleged that in the suicide note left by the deceased, it is clearly stated that due to harassment and pressure for partition of the property, he committed suicide. It is further alleged that the present applicant was also a member of the social meeting and, being a mediator, mediated between the family members, and the said social meeting was held at the house of the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the present case is a pure civil dispute between the family members in respect of the family property has given rise to this case. He submits that admittedly Chitendra and Jitendra (son of the deceased) were having the equal shares in the property, but unfortunately Chitendra dies on 04.07.2024, after the death of Chitendra, the husband of the Vimla (co-accused), the other son of Mahettar Ram Sahu/real brother of Chitendra were not interested for giving any share to the widow of Chitendra. He submits that just to inherited the entire property of Mahettar Ram Sahu, the younger brother of Chitendra got executed gift deed in favor of his son namely Bhupesh in respect of 0.48 dismil of land. And got executed the sale deed in favor of his son for 2.10 dismil of land in favor of 3 Bhupesh. By virtue of the gift deed and sale deed, nothing remain to be allotted to the legal heirs of Chitendra. When Vimla Bai (co- accused) came to know in respect of the said fact, Vimla Bai who was entitled for the equal share in the property after the death of her husband, raised an objections before the revenue authorities. The copies of the relevant order sheets of the court of Tehsildar already 8led by co-accused Vimla Bai along with her bail application. She raised an objection before Tehsildar Sakti and 4 di=erent cases were registered. The said proceedings between the parties are still pending under consideration before Tehsildar Sakti. In the said proceedings it has categorically being mentioned that Mahettar Ram Sahu inherited the property from his ancestors and Chitendra and his family members are entitled for the equal share of the property. The Copy of the mutation application 8led under Section 109 & 110 of Land Revenue Code by Vimla Sahu, the order sheets of the Court of Tehsildar, the objection raised by Vimla Sahu and order sheets of the court of Tehsildar are 8led herewith as Annex. A/4 in the bail application of the co-accused Vimla Bai. He further submits that looking to the family dispute the social meeting was also held in the village by intervention of elder members of the society. Being the elder member of the society the meeting was held in the house of the present applicant and the only intention of the elder member of the society to resolve the dispute between the family members so that they may live in harmony. The said meeting was held on 28.03.2025 and in the said meeting Mahettar Ram Sahu the father-in-law of the co-accused Vimla Bai, has assured 4 that Vimla Bai and her children will be given the appropriate share in the property. Due to the said statement the son of Mahettar Ram Sahu namely Jitendra/Complainant was not happy and due to which the unhealthy atmosphere was created in the house and in fact Jitendra and his family members have left Mahettar Ram Sahu alone for few days. All of sudden on 01.04.2025 the Mahettar Ram Sahu committed suicide by hanging himself. Taking advantage of this situation, the F.I.R. has been registered by Jitendra on the false allegations. He submits that neither the applicant has harassed the deceased nor abated or instigated the deceased for commission of the o=ence, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the objector opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute, and material available in the case diary, it appears that the present case is a purely of civil in nature, moreover, being an elder member of the society the said meeting was held at the applicant's house on 28.03.2025 to resolve a family dispute, during the meeting, Mahettar Ram Sahu (deceased) assured his daughter-in-law, Vimla Bai, and her children to give a share in the property, however, this assurance displeased his son, Jitendra, creating an unhealthy 5 atmosphere, a few days later, on 01.04.2025, Mahettar Ram Sahu committed suicide by hanging himself, In light of these 8ndings, and without further consideration of the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant - Yadram Sahu, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OFcer, 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 his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be veri8ed by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any o=ence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Abhishek