1 CGHC010235362026 2026:CGHC:30760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 982 of 2026 Dipak Soni S/o Late Santosh Soni Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Near Nagar Nigam, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.47/2026 registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 85 & 3(5) of the BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.21 11:18:42 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the applicant solemnized marriage with the complainant on 11-07-2024 according to the Hindu Rituals and Religious. After the Engagement the applicant and his family members demanded Car, Cash, Bike and Furniture. It is allegation against the applicant is that the applicant's family had promised to bear half of the wedding expenses, but they did not bear any expenses. After the marriage, the applicant and his family members continuously demanded a car worth five lakh rupees and a vehicle, and subjected her to physical and mental harassment. Applicant Dipak used to beat her for dowry, threw her out of the house several times, and also did not provide money for her education. Further allegation against the applicant is applicant Dipak used to share their private matters with his brother. In January 2025, her husband Dipak told her to transfer her father's land into his name. When she refused, Dipak severely beat her and threatened to burn her alive. Frightened by this, she called her family members and came back to her parental home on 12.01.2025, and has been living there since then. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offences, and the material collected during the investigation does not prima facie disclose sufficient evidence to establish his involvement. It is further submitted that, prior to the lodging of the FIR, the applicant had instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 20.11.2025 before the competent Court. The present FIR came to be registered only thereafter, which prima facie indicates that it is an 3 afterthought and has been lodged as a counterblast to the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the amount transferred by the father of respondent No. 2 to the bank account of the applicant's younger brother towards booking of the marriage hall was duly utilized for the marriage reception, which was jointly organized by both families, and, therefore, no dishonest intention or criminal misappropriation can be attributed to the applicant. It is also contended that custodial interrogation of the applicant is neither necessary nor justified, as the investigation can effectively proceed without his arrest. Learned counsel further submits that, vide order dated 01.07.2026, the applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000 in favour of the complainant. However, owing to severe financial hardship and his inability to arrange the said amount, the applicant could not comply with the said direction within the stipulated period. The non-compliance was neither wilful nor deliberate, but was solely on account of his genuine financial constraints. It is submitted that the applicant is now ready and willing to comply with any condition that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court, it is prayed that the applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 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 of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, this Court, without expressing any 4 opinion on the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Dipak Soni, 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) he 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he 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 applicant 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) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav