1 2026:CGHC:2035 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 390 of 2026 Dhani Ram Sahu S/o Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Nikum, P.S. Anda Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Arjunda, P.S. Arjunda District- Balod (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 390/2025, registered at Police Station : Arjunda, District - Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 85 & 89 of the BNS, 2023. 2. The prosecution story that in brief is that the present applicant along with other co-accused that applicant has demanded dowry and in the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.14 11:39:33 +0530 2 name of dowry he has acted cruelty with the complainant and acted pressure to abort saying that the child in womb is mentally and physically disabled and for that applicant has provided medicine for abort. And thus it is alleged that he has committed the said offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent and reputed person and has not been involved in the alleged offence. He further submits that the marriage between the applicant and the complainant, Vandana Sahu, was solemnized on 27.04.2024 in accordance with social customs, and thereafter the complainant left for her parental home on 14.07.2025 and informed the applicant that she would not return to her matrimonial home; when the applicant sought reasons through her mother, he was abused and told that she would not send her daughter back. After about two months, the complainant returned along with her parents stating that she was pregnant and suffering from abdominal pain, whereupon the applicant immediately took her for medical treatment; after sonography revealed bleeding in the embryo, she was advised treatment at a government hospital, and the applicant bore all medical expenses, though her parents later shifted her to a private hospital of their choice. It subsequently came to light that prior to the marriage the complainant was in a relationship with one Rakesh Sahu, which was also admitted by him in the presence of the applicant. The complainant has consistently refused to live in her matrimonial home and has also filed a maintenance case before the learned Family Court, Balod. The applicant has never demanded dowry nor subjected the complainant to any cruelty, and there is no direct or indirect role attributed to him in 3 the alleged abortion. The FIR has been registered under Sections 85 and 89 of the BNS after an unexplained delay of more than one year, which itself casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The applicant has been in custody since 18.10.2025, therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no previous antecedents and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and he has been in jail since 18.10.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let applicant, Dhani Ram Sahu, involved in Crime No.390/2025, registered at Police Station : Arjunda, District – Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 85 & 89 of the BNS, 2023, be released on bail on 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 4 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, 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav