1 2026:CGHC:14085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1753 of 2026 Priyanka Singh D/o Shri Sanjay Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 02, Gurudwara Basti, Bistupur, District Jamshedpur, Jharkhand ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate along with Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. For Objector : Ms. M. Asha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1382/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108 of B.N.S. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.09.2025, a marg enquiry bearing No. 76/2025 was registered under Section 194 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 B.N.S.S. after it was found that one Gaurav Savanni @ Ishank Savanni (deceased) had committed suicide near the down line signal ahead of Uslapur Railway Station, during the course of enquiry statements of the family members including Neeraj Makhija and the father of the deceased Shri Ashok Savanni were recorded, wherein it was alleged that the deceased was under continuous mental pressure and harassment on account of the present applicant, who had earlier lodged a criminal case against him at Noida in March 2025, pursuant to which the deceased was arrested and remained in custody for some time and that such events had a direct bearing on his mental condition, further during investigation a suicide note was recovered from the wallet of the deceased and its scanned copy was also found in his mobile phone, wherein the present applicant was specifically named as being responsible for the circumstances leading to his suicide, it is also alleged that prior to committing suicide the deceased had sent messages/emails to his brother referring to the said note and on the basis of these materials an FIR was registered on 21.11.2025, thus the prosecution alleges that the acts and conduct of the present applicant had a direct nexus with the abetment of suicide committed by the deceased. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contends that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant and the deceased came into contact in November 2024 through matrimonial platforms, namely Jeevansathi/ Shadi.com, with the intention of marriage. It is further 3 submitted that on 20.03.2025, when both parties planned to meet at Hotel Royal Villa, Sector-70, Noida, the deceased insisted upon booking a single room for both of them, expressing her intention to marry the applicant and during the course of their meeting, she allegedly forced herself upon the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that subsequently, as the relationship between the applicant and the deceased could not materialize, the deceased lodged an FIR against the applicant alleging sexual harassment, and thereafter, multiple FIRs were lodged against him at short intervals, on account of which the applicant remained in custody for some time before being released on bail. It is also submitted that after 20.03.2025, there was no contact or communication whatsoever between the applicant and the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased allegedly committed suicide on 27.09.2025 by coming under a train, however, the present FIR has been registered after an unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly two months, i.e., on 21.11.2025, purportedly on the basis of a suicide note alleged to have been recovered from the wallet of the deceased, without any specific date or circumstance of its recovery being mentioned. He further submits that even though the deceased’s brother allegedly received a message/email regarding the suicide instantly, no plausible explanation has been offered for such delay in lodging the FIR, rendering the prosecution story doubtful. It is further contended that a bare perusal of the entire allegations would reveal that there is no material to demonstrate that any act, omission, or conduct on the part of the applicant 4 satisfies the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. The FIR, as against the present applicant, is nothing but an afterthought on the part of the family members of the deceased, based on vague and omnibus allegations. Learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.01.2026. Considering the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and are duly supported by the material available on record, including the suicide note, wherein the applicant has been specifically named. It is further submitted that the conduct of the applicant clearly indicates his involvement in abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased, who died by coming under a train. Considering the gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant is directly responsible for the unfortunate death of the deceased, who ultimately committed suicide by coming under a train. It is contended that the conduct of the applicant was continuous, deliberate and of such a nature which left the deceased mentally shattered and with no option except to take the extreme step. It is further submitted that the applicant initially established contact with the deceased on matrimonial 5 platforms on the false pretext of marriage, gained her trust and emotionally involved her. Thereafter, the applicant exploited the deceased both emotionally and physically and when the deceased insisted upon marriage, the applicant refused to honour his commitment. The sudden withdrawal and denial by the applicant caused immense mental trauma, humiliation and social stigma to the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the situation further worsened when the applicant got multiple criminal cases registered against the deceased, including allegations of sexual harassment, as a result of which the deceased had to undergo custodial detention and face criminal prosecution. The repeated lodging of FIRs and the consequent harassment completely broke the deceased mentally and socially. It is contended that the applicant misused the legal process as a tool of harassment, which had a direct bearing on the fragile mental condition of the deceased. It is further submitted that the suicide note recovered from the possession of the deceased clearly attributes responsibility to the applicant, specifically narrating the circumstances and harassment faced by the deceased at his hands. The contents of the suicide note establish a direct nexus between the acts of the applicant and the extreme step taken by the deceased. The same is further corroborated by the statements of family members recorded during the investigation. 6. Learned counsel for the objector also submits that merely because there was no recent communication between the applicant and the deceased does not absolve the applicant of liability, as the 6 continuous harassment, emotional exploitation, false promises and criminal implications had already pushed the deceased into deep depression and hopelessness, ultimately leading to the commission of suicide. It is further contended that the delay in lodging the FIR is neither intentional nor fatal to the prosecution case, as the family members of the deceased were in deep shock and trauma after the sudden and unnatural death and the suicide note came to light subsequently, upon which the FIR was promptly registered. Considering the gravity of the offence, the direct allegations supported by the suicide note and the active role played by the applicant in abetting the suicide, she submits that no case for grant of bail is made out. It is, therefore, prayed that the present bail application be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations, material collected during investigation and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail, however, having regard to the fact that the applicant is a lady aged about 33 years, is in judicial custody since 10.01.2026 and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed and that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. 7 10. Let the Applicant -Priyanka Singh, involved in Crime No. 1382/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108 of B.N.S, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 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 sufÏcient 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 8 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 her in accordance with law. 11. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal