1 CGHC010265222026 2026:CGHC:31013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1093 of 2026 Smt. Shakun Bai Patel W/o Om Prakash Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Shehagaon, P.S. Nandini Nagar, Distt Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Nandini Nagar, Distt Durg Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2026 1. This is the first application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No.206/2026, registered at Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, initially Merg Intimation No.25/2026 under Section 194 of the BNSS was registered on the information that Smt. Kiran Patel, wife of co-accused Yuvraj Patel, had sustained extensive burn injuries after allegedly pouring diesel upon KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 herself at about 08:00 A.M. on 07.04.2026 at her matrimonial home, resulting in her death. It is recorded in the merg intimation that the deceased was suffering from mental illness. Subsequently, on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the father of the deceased alleging that the deceased was continuously subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws in connection with demand of dowry, an FIR came to be registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 80(2) of the BNS. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and the matter is under investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant was residing separately along with her husband and younger son in the old house, whereas the deceased was residing separately with her husband in the newly constructed house and therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to subject the deceased to any cruelty. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness account, no dying declaration and no suicide note implicating the present applicant. Learned counsel further submits that there are only omnibus and general allegations against the applicant regarding harassment of the deceased and no specific overt act has been attributed to her. It is also submitted that although an allegation has been levelled that the applicant along with co-accused committed the murder of the deceased, there is absolutely no material available on record to substantiate such allegation. It is further submitted that the 3 deceased was suffering from mental illness even prior to her marriage and was continuously undergoing treatment, which fact is reflected from the medical records placed on record. The treatment was continued even after marriage by the husband and family members of the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased had a minor son namely Anant, who has been looked after by the present applicant since birth and continues to remain under her care even after the unfortunate death of the deceased. It is also submitted that no allegation regarding demand of dowry was ever made prior to the incident and the allegations have been levelled only after the death of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the husband of the deceased has already been arrested and is in judicial custody and therefore, the case of the present applicant stands on an altogether different footing. Accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the offence alleged is of a serious nature relating to dowry death committed within a short period of marriage. It is submitted that the FIR came to be registered on the basis of the written complaint submitted after registration of the merg and the investigation is still in progress. It is further submitted that specific allegations have been made against the husband as well as the in-laws, including the present applicant, regarding harassment and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and, therefore, at this stage no indulgence deserves to be shown in favour of the applicant. It is further submitted that 4 custodial interrogation of the applicant may be necessary for a fair and effective investigation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the objector vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage inside her matrimonial home and therefore, the statutory presumption relating to dowry death is clearly attracted. It is submitted that immediately after the marriage, the deceased was continuously subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the husband, mother-in- law and other family members in connection with unlawful demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was allegedly paid by the complainant in order to save the matrimonial life of his daughter, yet the harassment continued. It is further submitted that owing to the inaction of the local police authorities, the complainant was constrained to approach this Court by filing WPCR No.322/2026 seeking a fair and impartial investigation and only thereafter the FIR came to be registered on the basis of Merg Intimation No.25/2026. Learned counsel further submits that while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court directed the Investigating Agency to conduct a fair, impartial and uninfluenced investigation. It is also submitted that the deceased sustained about 99% ante-mortem burn injuries and there is a strong prima facie case against the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant, along with her son, who is the husband of the deceased, had poured diesel upon the deceased resulting in her death. It is also submitted that grant of anticipatory 5 bail at this stage would adversely affect the ongoing investigation and there is every likelihood of the applicant influencing material witnesses and tampering with the evidence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, learned counsel appearing for the objector and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the allegations against the present applicant are primarily general in nature, the material available on record indicating that there is no eye-witness account, no dying declaration and no suicide note showing that the deceased was set on fire by the present applicant or any of the co-accused, the fact that the present applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and the fact that the husband of the deceased has already been arrested and is in judicial custody and therefore, the case of the present applicant stands on a footing distinguishable from that of the husband, the fact that the merg intimation itself records that the deceased was suffering from mental illness, the defence put forth by the applicant regarding her separate residence and the medical treatment of the deceased, which are matters to be examined during the course of trial and considering that the allegations regarding the involvement of the applicant would ultimately be tested during investigation and trial, this Court is of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of the present applicant does not appear to be necessary at this stage. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court 6 is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Smt. Shakun Bai Patel on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant 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 her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her 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) The applicant shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal