1 2026:CGHC:10827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 344 of 2026 1 - Sant Ram Sahu S/o Lacchi Prasad Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 8 Near Durga Mandir, Gharghoda, Raigarh District Raigarh, (C.G.) Pin Code-496111 2 - Hulsi Sahu W/o Sant Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 8 Near Durga Mandir, Ghargoda, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) Pin Code- 496111 ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. P.S. Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.)(Correctly-Mentioned) 2 - Meenakshi Sahu D/o Sanjay Sahu R/o Kasdol, Balodabazar District Balodabazar (C.G.) Pincode- 493335 ... Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Vijay Satya Krisha Oja, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.03.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who are apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.22/2026 registered at Police Station – Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar (C.G.) for VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.02 16:48:06 +0530 2 the offences punishable under Sections 296, 3(5) and 85 of the BNS 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the marriage of the complainant, Ms. Meenakshi Sahu, was solemnized with applicant Jaikant Sahu on 03.12.2024 as per Hindu rites and customs at her native place, and thereafter she started residing in her matrimonial home at Village Gharghoda, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). At the time of marriage, her family allegedly gave 3,00,000/- in cash, 40 tolas of silver and 5 ₹ tolas of gold as dowry; however, the husband and his family members were not satisfied and subsequently demanded an additional ₹5,00,000/- in cash and a car. On account of non-fulfilment of the said demand, the complainant was allegedly subjected to mental and physical cruelty, taunts and abuses, and continuous pressure was exerted upon her to meet the unlawful demand. It is specifically alleged that the acts of physical cruelty were primarily committed by the husband, Jaikant Sahu, whereas the allegations against the other family members are general in nature, including harassment, taunts and participation in the dowry demand. It is further alleged that on 18.09.2025, the complainant submitted a written application before Police Station Kasdol regarding the dowry demand and cruelty, and on the basis of the said application, FIR No. 0022/2026 was registered on 13.01.2026 for offences under Sections 85, 296 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the present applicants apprehend arrest in connection with the said FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR 3 dated 13.01.2026 registered under Sections 296, 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations made therein are false, vague, omnibus and devoid of any specific role or overt act attributed to the present applicants, and the same have been levelled with mala fide intention only to harass and falsely implicate them. It is submitted that the complainant did not reside in the matrimonial home for more than 10–15 days and thereafter started living separately with her husband, which fact she herself admitted during counselling proceedings. The applicants further submit that there is no medical evidence or independent material supporting the allegations of cruelty, and no prima facie case is made out against them. The offences alleged carry a maximum punishment of less than seven years, and therefore the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Puran v. Rambilas, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. are squarely applicable, wherein it has been held that arrest should not be made in a routine manner and that general allegations against relatives cannot form the basis of prosecution. The applicants are permanent residents, have deep roots in society, there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with evidence, and they are ready and willing to furnish adequate sureties and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute which appears to be matrimonial in character, and the material available on record, and further taking into account that the matter has already been referred to mediation today, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Sant Ram Sahu & Hulsi Sahu, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) they 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) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) they 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 his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav