1 2025:CGHC:7054 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1020 of 2025 1 - Madan Lal Dewangan S/o Shri Tekram Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o Vill. Sirri, P.S. Kharora, District – Raipur, C.G. 2 - Smt. Pinki Dewangan W/o Shri Jhumuk Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Vill. Sirri, P.S. Kharora, District – Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kharora, Raipur, District – Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07/02/2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 549/2024, registered at Police Station Kharora, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that a merg intimation was received bythe concerned Police and the FIR was registered by stating that on 24.07.2024 at about 3 pm, the deceased namely Dineshwari Dewangan RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 had consumed Kerosene Oil and other Poisonous substance and during the treatment on 26.07.2024, she died. During merg investigation it was revealed that the husband of the deceased and sister-in-law of deceased have raised the dispute regarding dowry and have also physically assaulted to the deceased and due to the same she has committed suicide, therefore, the applicants have been arrested by the concerned Police authorities without any justifiable reason and after investigation the charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant No.1 is the husband of the deceased and the applicant No.2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased and bhabhi of the applicant No.1, the marriage of the applicant No.1 and the deceased was solemnized in the year 2019, as per the prosecution case there appears to be a dispute between the deceased and applicant No.1 regarding harassment of the applicant for demand of dowry on account of which she consumed Kerosene Oil thereafter the deceased committed suicide. It is further submitted that the applicant No.2 was living separately from the deceased. The applicants are in jail since 04.10.2024 and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there was some dispute between the applicant No.1/husband and the deceased regarding the harassment of the applicant No.1 for demand of dowry on account of which she 3 committed suicide by consuming Kerosene Oil, further the applicant No.1/husband of the deceased has failed to discharge the burden envisaged under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and the deceased died due to unnatural death in the house of the applicant No.1, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, reads as under: “118. Presumption as to dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.” 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and from the perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the applicant No.1 is the husband of the deceased and the applicant No.2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased and bhabhi of the applicant No.1, the marriage of the applicant No.1 and the deceased was solemnized in the year 2019, as per the prosecution case there appears to be a dispute between the deceased and applicant No.1 regarding harassment of the applicant for demand of dowry on account of which she consumed Kerosene Oil thereafter the deceased committed suicide, further the applicant No.1/husband of the deceased has failed to discharge the burden envisaged under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and the deceased died due to unnatural death in the house of the applicant No.1, thus, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant No. 1. 4 8. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant No.1 – Madan Lal Dewangan involved in Crime No. 549/2024, registered at Police Station Kharora, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 9. Whereas the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the applicant No.2 who is the sister-in-law of the deceased and bhabhi of the applicant No.1, and there is no any specific allegations made against her she was living separately from the deceased and the applicant No.1, and she is in jail since 04.10.2024, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant No.2 is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 10. 10. Let applicant No.2 - Smt. Pinki Dewangan involved in Crime No. 549/2024, registered at Police Station Kharora, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 5 during trial and in order to secure his presence, 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 sufÏcient 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. 11. OfÏce 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 Rajshekhar