1 2026:CGHC:24039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3264 of 2026 1 - Satish Kulshreshtha S/o Kapil Kulshreshtha Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Daldali, P. S. Masturi, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kapil Kulshreshtha S/o Late Jeevan Kulshreshtha Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Daldali, P. S. Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S. H. O.) P. S. Masturi District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Non-Applicant Along with MCRC No. 3317 of 2026 Smt. Kiran Kulshreshtha W/o Kapil Kulshreshtha Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Daldali, P.S. Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S.- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.06.2026 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 1. Since the above-mentioned two first bail applications arise out of same incident, same crime number and registered at same police station, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 0550/2025, registered at Police Station - Masturi, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 123, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant, namely Bindu Kulshreshtha, FIR No. 0550/2025 was registered on 28.08.2025 at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is alleged that on 21.08.2025, owing to domestic discord and demand of money, the complainant was subjected to assault by the accused persons. During the course of investigation, it was further alleged that the applicants, along with other family members, administered insecticide/poison to the complainant, as a result of which she had to be taken for medical treatment. Subsequently, Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was also added to the case. During the course of investigation, the present applicants came to be arrested. Hence, the present bail applications. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and have no involvement in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the dispute arose out of matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, and the FIR was lodged in the heat of the moment due to domestic differences. He further submits that the marriage between the complainant and applicant, namely Satish, was solemnized in the year 2017 and the applicants, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, have been residing separately since the years 2019-2020 and had no direct involvement in the day-to-day matrimonial affairs of the couple. It is submitted that the allegations against the applicants are omnibus and general in nature without any specific overt act being attributed to any of them. He further submits that after registration of the FIR, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and continued to reside together as a family, and under the bona fide belief that the matter would be closed. It is also submitted that after about seven months of the alleged incident, the applicants were arrested on 23.03.2026. He points out that the complainant herself appeared before the learned Court below and submitted that she is residing with her matrimonial family and that continuation of the criminal proceedings and incarceration of the applicants would adversely affect her matrimonial life and future. It is further submitted that the complainant has filed a written no-objection stating that the FIR was lodged due to a minor domestic quarrel and that the dispute has since been amicably settled with the intervention of family 4 elders. He further submits that applicant who is a mother-in-law of the complainant, aged about 53 years, while applicant who is a father-in-law of the complainant is a senior citizen aged about 63 years, and their continued detention would adversely affect their health, dignity and family life. In such circumstances. It is further submitted that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and are in jail since 23.03.2026, the charge sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail applications and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present cases. He further submits that the applicants are specifically named in the FIR and serious allegations have been levelled against them. It is submitted that the complainant has alleged that, owing to domestic discord and demand of money, she was subjected to cruelty and assault and was thereafter administered insecticide/poison by the applicants along with other family members, necessitating medical treatment. He further submits that, considering the gravity of the allegations and the material collected during investigation prima facie indicating the involvement of the applicants, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the dispute arises out of a matrimonial discord 5 between the parties, that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2017, that applicants (father-in-law and mother-in-law) are stated to be residing separately since 2019-2020, that the complainant herself has appeared before the Court and expressed her desire to reside with her matrimonial family and has filed a no-objection stating that the dispute has been amicably settled, coupled with the fact that the applicants were arrested after a considerable lapse of time from the date of the alleged incident and that applicants are senior citizen, further the charge-sheet has already been filed, they have no previous criminal antecedents, the applicants are in jail since 23.03.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in theses cases. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicants are allowed. Let the Applicants – Satish Kulshreshtha, Kapil Kulshreshtha and Smt. Kiran Kulshreshtha, involved in Crime No. 0550/2025, registered at Police Station - Masturi, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 123, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 6 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 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 Rahul Dewangan