1 2026:CGHC:7668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.1501 of 2026 Anju Singh Chouhan W/o Shri Keshar Singh Chouhan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Khokhasa Ward No.- 10 Chouki Naila District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station District- Magistrate, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.12 10:38:45 +0530 2 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No.972/2025 registered at Police Station – Police Out Post Naila, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of BNS Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was the wife of co-accused Mahendra Singh Chouhan, who is the son of the present Applicant. After the marriage, the deceased was allegedly subjected to mental as well as physical cruelty by the co-accused and the present Applicant in connection with unlawful demand of dowry. It is alleged that due to such harassment and misbehavior, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 27.09.2025. The matter was reported to the police, upon which investigation was conducted and the Applicant, along with the co-accused, was arrested in connection with the said incident. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, who is languishing in jail since 09.11.2025. It is contended that the Applicant, being the mother-in-law of the deceased, was residing in a separate house distinct from the matrimonial home of the deceased and therefore, in the absence of a common household, the allegation of frequent 3 harassment or proximity as required under law is not made out. It is further submitted that for attracting the offence under Section 80(1) of the BNS, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty “soon before her death”; however, at the relevant time, the deceased was residing at her parental home and not with the Applicant, thereby breaking the live link necessary to sustain the charge. Learned counsel also submits that the marriage between the deceased and the co-accused, who is the son of the Applicant herein, was a love marriage performed against the wishes of the deceased’s parents, who never accepted the matrimonial alliance or the Applicant who had supported the same and hence the present FIR is alleged to be retaliatory in nature. It is further contended that no specific overt act or direct role has been attributed to the Applicant, which could have driven the deceased to commit suicide and the allegations against her are omnibus and vague, without any specific dates or instances of dowry demand, reflecting a tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence and no further custodial 4 interrogation of the Applicant is required and therefore the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the Applicant are serious in nature, relating to cruelty and harassment for dowry which ultimately resulted in the suicidal death of the deceased within the matrimonial fold. It is contended that the statements of prosecution witnesses and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the involvement of the Applicant in subjecting the deceased to mental and physical cruelty in connection with unlawful demand of dowry, and therefore, her complicity cannot be ruled out at this stage. He further submits that the mere plea of separate residence or absence of specific overt act is a matter of trial and cannot be a ground for grant of bail in a case involving dowry death. It is also contended that the seriousness of the offence and the surrounding circumstances require a cautious approach and there exists a likelihood of the Applicant influencing witnesses if released on bail. Hence, it is prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant that she is the mother-in-law of the deceased and was residing separately from the matrimonial home, that no specific overt act or direct role has been attributed to her and the allegations are omnibus in nature, that for attracting the offence under Section 80(1) of the BNS the element of cruelty “soon before death” is required to be established and the deceased was allegedly residing at her parental home at the relevant time and further taking into account that the investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in judicial custody since 09.11.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that continued detention of the applicant is not warranted at this stage. Without further commenting anything on the merits of the case and considering the facts in their entirety, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the Applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant- Anju Singh Chouhan involved in Crime No. 972/2025 registered at Police Station – Police Out Post Naila, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of BNS Act be 6 released on bail on her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, 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 her in accordance with law. 7 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 Priya