1 2025:CGHC:59805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1937 of 2025 1 - Michuram Chauhan S/o Dhannuram Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Mirminda Hirapur, P.S. Makdi, Dist. Kondagaon C.G. 2 - Smt. Lachchhanbati Chauhan W/o Mr. Michuram Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Mirminda Hirapur, P.S. Makdi, Dist. Kondagaon C.G. 3 - Subita Chauhan D/o Mr. Michuram Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Mirminda Hirapur, P.S. Makdi, Dist. Kondagaon C.G. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Makdi, District Kondagaon C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 36/2025, registered at Police Station Makdi, District Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Ruchita was married to Radheshyam, the son of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and the brother of applicant No. 3, on 02.06.2025. Applicant No. 1 is the father-in-law, applicant No. 2 is the mother-in-law, and applicant No. 3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. It is alleged that about one month after the marriage, Ruchita was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and by the in-laws on the pretext that she had not brought a motorcycle as dowry. On 18.09.2025, due to continuous harassment, Ruchita allegedly consumed insecticide kept in the house, following which she developed serious complications. She was taken to the hospital, where she died during treatment at about 11:00 p.m. the same night. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered against her husband and the present applicants, for the offence under Section 80(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated, as the FIR was initially registered only against the husband of the deceased, Radheshyam, who was residing separately with his wife. It is urged that the applicants, who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in- law of the deceased, live in a separate house and have no connection with the alleged incident. There is neither any dying declaration nor any prior complaint by the deceased or her family regarding cruelty or demand of dowry. Even the viscera report confirming death due to consumption of poison has not been produced. It is further submitted that the applicants were not named 3 in the FIR and have never subjected the deceased to any ill- treatment, but have been roped in merely because they are in-laws. Applicant No.1 is a farmer, and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are women, the latter being only 24 years old, and their incarceration would cause undue hardship. Therefore, he prays grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail application to the applicant. She submits that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. It is argued that the deceased was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment soon after marriage on account of dowry demand, and due to such persistent torture, she consumed insecticide and died during treatment. The role of the applicants, who are close family members of the husband, is specifically mentioned in the FIR, and the allegations disclose their active involvement in instigating and subjecting the deceased to physical and mental cruelty. She also submits that custodial interrogation may be necessary to ascertain the full extent of their involvement, and granting anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the investigation. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the offence and the nature of accusations, the applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the material on record prima facie discloses their involvement, as they have been specifically named in the allegations of dowry-related cruelty and harassment attributed to the in-laws. The nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the fact that the deceased is alleged to have consumed insecticide due to continuous harassment within a short span of marriage, does not justify the grant of anticipatory bail to Applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Furthermore, the husband of the deceased, who is the main accused, is already in judicial custody, and releasing the parents-in-law at this stage may adversely affect the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant Nos. 1and 2. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 - Michuram Chauhan and Smt. Lachchhanbati Chauhan, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 36/2025, registered at Police Station Makdi, District Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 7. However, so far as Applicant No. 3 namely Subita Chauhan who is the sister-in-law of the deceased is concerned, it appears that she is a unmarried girl aged about 24 years and was residing separately from the deceased and her husband. The FIR and case diary do not reflect any specific overt act or direct role attributed to her except for general allegations. In the absence of any concrete material 5 indicating her involvement, this Court is of the view that the applicant No. 3 is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA with respect to the applicant No.2 is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant No.3 – Subita Chauhan, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant 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 her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her 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) The applicant shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan