1 2025:CGHC:60256 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10192 of 2025 Ankit Gupta S/o Rajkumar Gupta, Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. G.B.03, Godawari Nagar Yashvihar, Motinagar, Boriyakhurd, P.S. Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Sharma along with Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.12.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed 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. 645/2025 registered at Police Station – Police Station Tikrapara District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 80 and 3(5) of VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.11 18:14:31 +0530 2 the BNS 2023. 2. As per the prosecution, the marriage between Ankit Gupta, the son of the applicant, and Deepali Sahu was solemnized on 22.11.2024. It is alleged that during the marriage ceremony, the expected articles of stridhan were not provided to the satisfaction of the groom’s family, and therefore a demand of Rs.20 lakhs was allegedly made to enable the groom to start his business. It is further alleged that after the marriage, Deepali Sahu was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his family members on account of the said demand. The prosecution states that certain family matters, including issues related to her pregnancy, led to tension within the matrimonial household. According to the prosecution, an incident occurred on 13.08.2025, resulting in the unnatural death of Deepali Sahu within seven years of marriage, leading to a presumption of dowry-related offence under law. On the basis of the allegations made by the maternal family members of the deceased, an FIR bearing Crime No. 645/2025 was registered against the husband and all his family members for offences relating to dowry harassment and cruelty. 3. The applicant respectfully submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as neither he nor his family members have ever committed the alleged offence, and he has been intentionally named only because he is the father-in-law of the deceased. The learned Court below failed to appreciate the applicant’s age and deteriorating health condition, as well as the serious medical condition of his wife, who is suffering from cancer and requires continuous treatment. The prosecution has not established the 3 essential ingredients of the alleged charges, yet the learned Court rejected bail by stretching its conclusions beyond legal limits. The applicant has clean antecedents, has never been involved in any criminal case, and the charge-sheet has already been filed, eliminating any possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing the trial. The applicant further undertakes to comply with any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant in the present case. 4. Learned State Counsel, as well as the learned counsel for the objector, opposed the bail application and submit that the FIR contains clear allegations of a demand for Rs.20 lakhs and dissatisfaction with the streedhan, followed by cruelty inflicted upon the deceased, which is consistently supported by the statements of her relatives. The deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home, and the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates continuous harassment related to dowry. The chats relied upon by the applicant do not diminish the seriousness of the allegations nor rebut the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Moreover, the fact that certain co-accused have been granted bail on distinct medical or exceptional grounds does not entitle the present applicant to similar relief, therefore he is not entitled for regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the material on record, it appears that the accusations against the present applicant 4 are general and omnibus, with no specific role attributed to him in the alleged offence. The post-mortem report indicates that the deceased died of asphyxia due to an ante-mortem act, but there is no material directly linking the applicant to the incident. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, and in view of the fact that the charge- sheet has already been filed, he has been in custody since 19.08.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Ankit Gupta, involved in Crime No. 645/2025 registered at Police Station – Police Station Tikrapara District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 80 and 3(5) of the BNS 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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, 5 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav