1 CGHC010275222026 2026:CGHC:30656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6468 of 2026 Ajay Tandon S/o Asadu Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Balouda (Hasuwa) P.S. Gidhauri, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gidhauri, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.07.2026 1. This is the second 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. 77/2026 registered at Police Station - Gidhauri, District – Balouda Bazar – Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application filed by the applicant, being MCRC No. 5136 of 2026, was dismissed on account of a defective cause title vide order dated 10.07.2026, with liberty to file a fresh bail application. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that pursuant to the investigation conducted in Marg Intimation No. 12/2026 under Section 194 of the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.21 15:22:23 +0530 2 BNSS, the present FIR came to be registered. It is alleged that the applicant was previously in a relationship with the deceased, Kumari Renuka Anant, and had established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage. On 25.01.2026, the deceased allegedly called the applicant to her house at Giraudpuri and asked him to fulfil his promise of marriage. However, the applicant allegedly refused to marry her. Thereafter, the deceased slit her left wrist and consumed pesticide. She succumbed to her injuries during treatment at Chandadevi Tiwari Hospital, Baloda Bazar, on 01.02.2026. It is alleged that the applicant abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. He further submits that this is the second bail application of the applicant, the first bail application was dismissed on account of a defective cause title vide order dated 10.07.2026, with liberty to file a fresh bail application. He also submits that the applicant and the deceased knew each other prior to the incident and used to converse over mobile phone. The deceased persistently pressured the applicant to speak with her and repeatedly threatened to consume poison if he refused to meet or talk to her. She also used to send photographs of poison bottles to the applicant. He also submits that the factual matrix of the case reveals that the relationship between the applicant and the deceased was entirely consensual, and both parties mutually understood it to be casual in nature. The deceased was fully aware that the applicant was unemployed, and she had herself expressly acknowledged that her family would never permit her to marry an unemployed person. Therefore, the prosecution’s foundational allegation that the applicant established physical relations with the deceased on the false promise of 3 marriage is inherently contradictory and wholly baseless. He also submits that the deceased’s own statements disclose a clear pattern of emotional instability, possessiveness, and manipulative behaviour. She routinely blackmailed the applicant by threatening to consume poison and by sending him photographs of poison bottles in an attempt to control him and prevent him from interacting with his other friends. The unfortunate incident appears to have been an impulsive act arising out of the deceased’s hypersensitive and volatile temperament, rather than any wilful instigation or intentional aid on the part of the applicant. Merely refusing to succumb to emotional blackmail or declining to meet the deceased at odd hours does not, by any stretch of legal interpretation, constitute the mens rea (guilty intention) required to establish the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that the applicant never instigated, abetted, or harassed the deceased to commit suicide. Even if the deceased took the extreme step of ending her life out of guilt, disappointment, or impulse, the applicant cannot be held criminally liable for the same. There is no eye-witness or direct or circumstantial evidence on record which, prima facie, establishes the allegations against the applicant. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 30.03.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He submits that the applicant established physical relationship with the deceased on the false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her, which led the deceased to take the extreme step. Considering 4 the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during the investigation, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that this is the second bail application of the applicant, the first bail application having been dismissed on account of a defective cause title vide order dated 10.07.2026 with liberty to file a fresh bail application, and further considering the allegation that the deceased and the applicant were in a consensual relationship which, for certain reasons, could not culminate in marriage, following which the deceased allegedly committed suicide, as well as the fact that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 30.03.2026 and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the view that, without commenting on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. 8. Let the Applicant – Ajay Tandon, involved in Crime No. 77/2026 registered at Police Station - Gidhauri, District – Balouda Bazar – Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing 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 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 5 court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 sufficient 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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek