1 2025:CGHC:51485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1594 of 2025 Pavitra Kumar Rana S/o Khemraj Rana Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chandli, Tehsil Chandrapur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chandrapur, Tehsil Chandrapur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 15.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 79/2025, registered at Police Station Chandrapur, District- Sakti (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 80(2), 3(5) of the BNS. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.15 19:33:27 +0530 2 2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 17.07.2025, the deceased, Neeta Rana, allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself. After a lapse of 21 days, a complaint was lodged at Police Station Chandrapur, District Sakti, alleging that the husband of the deceased had, after marriage, failed to provide for her education and had demanded dowry. It is stated that at the time of the alleged incidents, the deceased was a student of B.A. Second Year at New Government College, Chandrapur. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered under Crime No. 79/2025. The prosecution alleges that the actions of the accused led to mental harassment and distress, ultimately resulting in the death of the deceased. Hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the FIR in the present case is grossly delayed by 21 days. Furthermore, this Court has already granted bail to all similarly placed co-accused, copies of which are annexed as Annexure A/3 in the present bail application. The allegations leveled against the applicant and other family members are wholly false and afterthought, as the applicant has never demanded dowry nor committed any act of physical assault against the deceased. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Moreover, at the time immediately following the deceased’s suicide, no allegations regarding dowry were made, and such allegations have been raised only after a delay of three weeks, 3 making them clearly belated and fabricated. It is also submitted that the deceased had, at times, objected to the applicant’s actions, although he was merely taking care of the minor children of his elder brother, whose mother had left them. Preliminary inquiries revealed no allegations of dowry, and such claims were fabricated at a later stage. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submits that the anticipatory bail application should be accepted exceptionally in such cases in which prima facie involvement in the crime is not shown whereas in this case the involvement of the applicant is prima facie visible. Further, a perusal of the case diary prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicant/accused in the commission of a serious offense of dowry death, which is grave in nature. The case diary contains no material to suggest that the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated, and there are no exceptional circumstances disclosed in the investigation that warrant the grant of anticipatory bail. In view of the above, it is submitted that anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused should not be granted, as the allegations are serious, the investigation is in progress, and the applicant/accused’s involvement is prima facie evident. 4 5. Learned State counsel further submit that so far as other co- accused who have been granted bail by this Court are concerned, they were relatives of the applicant and the applicant is the main accused / husband of the deceased. Furthermore, in the bail allowing orders of the co-accused, it is specifically observed by this Court that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the said co-accused. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Upon perusal of the case diary, FIR, and submissions of learned counsel for both parties, it is evident that the allegations against the applicant/accused pertain to a serious offense of dowry harassment and instigation to commit suicide, as the deceased, Neeta Rana, allegedly suffered physical and mental torture, which ultimately led to her death. The investigation is still in progress, and a perusal of the case diary prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicant/accused. No material has been brought on record to suggest that the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated or that any exceptional circumstances exist warranting anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Pavitra Kumar Rana involved in Crime No. 79/2025, registered at Police Station Chandrapur, District- Sakti (C.G.) for alleged 5 commission of offence punishable under Sections 80(2), 3(5) of the BNS is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek