1 2026:CGHC:8845 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1661 of 2026 Tika Ram Sahu S/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Village- Charabhatta, Tehsil- Gunderdehi, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Gunderdehi, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/02/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 337/2025 registered at Police Station- Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 80 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house when no other family ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.19 17:36:03 +0530 2 member was present at home. It is alleged that the husband, father- in-law and mother-in-law used to subject her to harassment and pressurize her on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of these allegations, FIR No. 337/2025 has been registered at Police Station Gunderdehi, District Balod against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has never demanded any dowry from the deceased or her relatives, nor has any such allegation ever been made during the subsistence of the marriage. It is contended that on the date of the incident i.e. 02.11.2025, relatives of the deceased were present, yet no allegation of dowry demand or harassment was raised either at that time or during the preparation of the merg intimation and panchnama. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of 13 days, i.e., on 15.11.2025, in a pre- planned manner only to falsely implicate the applicant and his family members. The FIR was registered by a Head Constable and not by any relative of the deceased, and the reason for delay mentioned in Column No. 8 of the FIR has been left blank. Even in Merg Intimation No. 59/2025, no specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant or any family member. The applicant and co-accused were arrested on the very same day without proper intimation to their relatives, allegedly in violation of the mandatory guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. 3 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased was a well-educated lady, having completed M.A., and during her married life she never complained against the applicant or his family members to any relative or to her parents regarding any demand of dowry or harassment. No suicide note has been recovered. It is contended that the deceased was not on cordial terms with her husband only on account of his involvement in theatre and drama activities since childhood, which she reportedly disapproved of. It is also submitted that she was initially unwilling to conceive so soon after marriage, though medical advice was otherwise. It is also submitted that the co-accused, who is the wife of the applicant, has already been granted regular bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 813/2026 vide order dated 22.01.2026, and on the ground of parity, the applicant is also entitled to bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence and there are specific allegations of harassment and dowry demand against him and other family members, which ultimately led to the commission of suicide by the deceased in her matrimonial home. It is contended that the investigation has revealed sufÏcient material indicating the applicant’s involvement, and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. However, learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 813/2026 vide order dated 22.01.2026. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, particularly that the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial home and the allegations pertain to demand of dowry and harassment, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court; that there was a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR; that no specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant in the merg intimation; that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and is in judicial custody since 18.11.2025; and further that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 in M.Cr.C. No. 813/2026, this Court, without commenting upon the merits of the case, is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed on the ground of parity. 9. Let the applicant – Tika Ram Sahu, involved in Crime No. 337/2025 registered at Police Station- Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 80 of BNS, be released on bail on his 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 5 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 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 sufÏcient 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. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek