1 2026:CGHC:1750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 335 of 2026 Sushil @ Bhuru Kenwat S/o Nageshwar Kenwat Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Changori, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 12.01.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 413/2025, registered at Police Station - Akaltara, Jangjgir - Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.13 11:42:40 +0530 2 296,115(2),118(2), 85, 80(2) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage between the deceased and the present applicant was solemnized in the year 2024, and out of the wedlock one female child was born. It is alleged that after the marriage, the applicant subjected the deceased to cruelty, harassment and physical assault on account of demand for dowry. On 12.08.2025 at about 12:00 midnight, the applicant informed the family members of the deceased that a dispute had arisen between them and called them to his house. Upon reaching there, the family members found that the deceased had allegedly been assaulted by the applicant with a ‘Hasja’ (weapon). The deceased was immediately taken for treatment, however, she succumbed to her injuries during treatment at DKS Hospital, Raipur. Consequently, the offences as mentioned herein above were registered against the applicant and, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that in the present case, as he has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution; that the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 13.08.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 15 days on 29.08.2025; that as per the medical records, the MLC conducted on 22.08.2025 noted mental illness of the deceased and certain burn injuries, while the post-mortem conducted on 10.09.2025 opined that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to head injury and burns with complications, which clearly 3 shows material inconsistencies in the medical evidence; that after the alleged incident, the deceased was not residing in her matrimonial home and was taken to her parental house by her family members; that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 296, 115(2), 118(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and subsequently Section 82 of BNS was added at the stage of filing of the charge-sheet only due to the pressure of the family members of the deceased, without any dying declaration having been recorded at any stage; that the prosecution case itself indicates that the deceased was suffering from mental illness, and the applicant has been falsely roped in due to family influence after her death on 09.09.2025 at DKS Hospital; that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 29.08.2025, and as the trial is likely to take a considerable time for its conclusion, his continued detention would be unjustified; that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding; and that the applicant undertakes to furnish adequate surety and to abide by all the directions and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting him regular bail. 4. 4. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail application, contending that after her marriage in the year 2024, the deceased was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment for dowry by the applicant. It was further submitted that she later sustained serious injuries and, despite being treated at various hospitals, ultimately succumbed to those injuries. The post-mortem report clearly shows that the victim had suffered grave injuries, as specifically mentioned therein:- 4 • Old healed scar mark present on forehead 03x02 cm transverse oblique. On opening of scalp yellowish discoloration with red patches due to ecchymosis present on frontal & parietal region. Skull bone intact. Subarachnoid hemorrhage present on right frontal region. Hemorrhagic contusion present on frontal lobes 04x02cm. with pus plaques present. • Superficial infected partially healed burn present on both side palm in area of 07x03 cm. Transverse. • Multiple superficial infected with partially healed burn present on left lower leg 02x01 cm, 01x1.5 cm, 03x02 cm, 02x01cm, 02x1.5 cm and various size and shape. • Multiple superficial infected with partially healed burn present on right lower leg1.5x01 cm, 02x01cm, 02x1.5 cm and various size and shape. • Multiple superficial infected with partially healed burn present right elbow region posterior aspect 08 in number in area of 02x1.5 cm 02x01 cm, 01x1.5 cm, 03x02 cm, 02x01cm, 02x1.5 cm, 1.5x0.7 cm and 03x1.5 cm. • Multiple superficial infected with partially healed burn present on left palm with fingers 02x1.5 cm 02x01 cm, 01x1.5 cm, 03x02 cm, 02x01cm, 02x1.5 cm, therefore, in view of the seriousness of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, and the material available in the case diary, it prima facie appears that after her marriage in the year 2024, the deceased was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands by the applicant/accused. The statements of the family members of the deceased disclose allegations of repeated physical abuse, and the sequence of events leading to her hospitalization at Akaltara Hospital, CIMS Bilaspur and thereafter at DKS Hospital, Raipur, where she ultimately succumbed during treatment, indicates the seriousness of the accusations. The medical 5 evidence placed on record further reveals that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries, including burn injuries on her hands and other parts of the body as well as head injuries, which, at this stage, corroborate the prosecution version. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations, the medical evidence indicating serious injuries to the deceased, and the overall material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit one for granting bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sushil @ Bhuru Kenwat, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 413/2025, registered at Police Station - Akaltara, Jangjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296,115(2),118(2), 85, 80(2) of the BNS, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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