1 2026:CGHC:56 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1978 of 2025 1. Guruprasad Tripathi S/o Sundarlal Tripathi, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Baturakachhar, Police Station And Tahsil Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Sitla Tripathi W/o Guruprasad Tripathi, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Baturakachhar, Police Station And Tahsil Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. Hemant Tripathi, S/o Guruprasad Tripathi, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Baturakachhar, Police Station And Tahsil Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. Ravi Tripathi, S/o Guruprasad Tripathi, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Baturakachhar, Police Station And Tahsil Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) … Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Papariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.01.2026 1. Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicants, states that he has filed his vakalatnama today before the Registry of this Court and, therefore, prays for permission to argue the matter. 2. Prayed made by Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate is allowed. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.03 14:27:21 +0530 2 3. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who areb apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 321/2025 registered at Police Station – Pipariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 85, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Sections 306, 498-A, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860). 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the allegations against the present applicants are that they have committed offences under Sections 108, 85, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; however, the said FIR is false, fabricated, and lodged after an unexplained delay against the present applicants. The allegations levelled against the applicants are vague and omnibus, and a fateful incident has been registered as an offence against family members who have been residing separately for a long time from the family of the deceased. There is no direct or indirect involvement of the present applicants in the alleged offence. Accordingly, the present applicants are entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It was submitted that the marriage of the deceased with the co-accused, namely Vinod Tripathi, who is the son of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and the brother of applicant Nos. 3 and 4, was solemnized about eight years prior, and two children were born out of the wedlock. It was further submitted that the deceased was suffering from depression and was living separately from the applicants. The applicants were also residing separately from the deceased and her husband. Applicant No. 1 had informed the Sarpanch as far back as 25.11.2019 that the deceased and her husband, namely Vinod Tripathi, were living separately from the applicants, and a separate 3 ration card was also issued in the name of the applicants, distinct from that of the deceased and her husband. So far as the dying declaration of the deceased is concerned, the allegations against applicant No. 1, namely Guruprasad Tripathi, and applicant No. 3, namely Hemant Tripathi, are general in nature, alleging that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the applicants and her husband, due to which she was allegedly abetted to commit suicide. Therefore, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application. She submits that from the perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the deceased had been subjected to harassment by her husband Vinod Tripathi, her brother-in-law Hemant Tripathi, and her father-in-law GuruPrasad Tripathi since her marriage. Further, the deceased, Rani Sharma, was repeatedly harassed by her husband Vinod since their marriage, and that, driven to desperation, she attempted suicide by pouring turpentine oil on herself. Furthermore, it was alleged that the deceased's in-laws did not attempt to help her during the incident and instead instigated her further, even filming the event, hence, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, the material available on record, and the nature of allegations, and the fact that although it has been contended that the applicants were residing separately and that the deceased was suffering from depression, the case diary reveals that the marriage of the deceased with co-accused Vinod Tripathi subsisted for about eight years and two children were born from 4 the wedlock, further the dying declaration of the deceased specifically attributes cruelty and harassment to the husband and also makes allegations against applicant No. 1, Guruprasad Tripathi, and applicant No. 3, Hemant Tripathi, at this stage, the contention that the allegations are vague and omnibus cannot be accepted, as the dying declaration constitutes a prima-facie material requiring detailed investigation, considering the seriousness of the offence, the allegations of cruelty leading to the commission of suicide, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant Nos. 1and 3. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant Nos. 1 and 3 - Guruprasad Tripathi and Hemant Tripathi, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 321/2025 registered at Police Station – Pipariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 85, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Sections 306, 498-A, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860) for the offence, is rejected. 10. So far as applicant Nos. 2 and 4 are concerned, who are the mother-in- law and dewar (brother-in-law) of the deceased respectively, there are no specific allegations levelled against them. In view of the absence of any direct or specific role attributed to applicant Nos. 2 and 4, this Court is of the considered opinion that they are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 11. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA with respect to the applicant Nos.2 and 4 are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants Nos.2 and 4 – Sitla Tripathi and Ravi Tripathi, on executing a personal bond with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the 5 arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicants 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and 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 their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicants shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti