1 2025:CGHC:56198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1820 of 2025 1 - Roopkunwar Bai W/o Bharat Lal Jaiswal, Aged About 65 Years R/o Asnind, Tahsil And P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Girja Bai, D/o Bharat Lal Jaiswal, Aged About 27 Years R/o Asnind, Tahsil And P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. S. B. Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.11.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 have been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 624/2025 registered at Police Station – Kasdol District – Balodabazar- Bhatapara(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.19 12:35:36 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the case against the applicants is that they fear arrest in Crime No. 624/2025, Section 108, 3 (5) of the B.N.S. of the Kasdol Police Station. They, claim they are innocent and are being falsely implicated and have committed no crime. Applicant No. 1 (Roop Kunwar Bai) is a 65 years old lady and Applicant No. 2 (Girja Bai) has a one-year-old infant. Other members of the accused's family are in jail, leaving them with no one to care for the children and deceased had previously attempted suicide, which was reported by her husband, Makhan Lal, at the Police Station Kasdol. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation that they induced the deceased to commit suicide is wholly unsubstantiated, as there is no connection or role between the deceased and the present applicants; that the applicants have been intentionally implicated by the family members of the deceased’s matrimonial house after a delay of two months, and they are being dragged into the dispute that existed solely between the deceased and her husband; that the prosecution case rests merely on presumption that, being the mother-in-law and sister-in-law, the applicants must be complicit, whereas no direct evidence links them to the alleged abetment of suicide; that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the applicants had no dispute with the deceased for more than 13 years of her marriage, have clean antecedents, and have never been involved in any offence; that the prosecution has failed to collect sufficient material to proceed, and the long delay in investigation tilts the balance of convenience in favour of granting anticipatory bail, as the material collected does not prima facie 3 establish the ingredients of the offence against the applicants; that the apprehension of tampering with evidence is unfounded since the Investigating Officer has not collected any incriminating document against the applicants, nor has any witness alleged threat or inducement; that the applicants have clean antecedents, have never been prosecuted earlier, and their law-abiding nature rules out any possibility of repetition of offences; that the applicants are women and permanent residents of Asnind, Kasdol (C.G.) with deep roots in society and immovable property, eliminating any risk of absconding or fleeing from justice that there exist no exceptional circumstances to justify denial of protection under Section 482 BNSS, particularly considering the inordinate delay in investigation and absence of direct evidence; that the applicants undertake to abide by any and every condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court, including furnishing sureties, marking attendance, and full cooperation with the Investigating Officer; that the Court below has stretched its reasoning beyond permissible legal limits while rejecting their bail application; that it is not in the interest of the prosecution to contend that the applicants, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and the material available in the 4 case diary, it is observed that Applicant No. 1 is a 65-year-old elderly woman and Applicant No. 2, Girja Bai, is the mother of a one-year-old infant. It is further noted that other members of the accused family are already in custody, leaving no one to take care of the minor children. The case diary also reflects that the deceased had earlier attempted suicide, which was duly reported by her husband, Makhan Lal, at Police Station Kasdol. In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Roopkunwar Bai & Girja Bai, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) they 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) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) Applicants shall appear before the trial Court on eachand every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicants 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 verified by the trial Court. (e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav