1 CGHC010316402026 2026:CGHC:36660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1336 of 2026 Naveen Kumar Verma S/o Tarasingh Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Lodhi Para, Mudiya, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil Devkar, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Police Station- Chuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) For Applicant : Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Miss Palak Dwivedi, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.251/2026 registered at Police Station – Chuikhadan, District – Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108 & 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.18 18:49:48 +0530 2 (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 4.7.2026, the wife of deceased Ganeshwar Janghel lodged a written report against the applicant and other persons stating that deceased Ganeshwar Janghel was known to the present applicant and both were acquainted with each other since their academic days, having studied Civil Engineering together. The applicant and the deceased were thus known to each other for several years. The deceased was engaged in the field of civil contracting. It is alleged by the complainant that the applicant met the deceased at Bhilai and suggested/advised him to obtain a contract licence and participate in contract work in the Public Health Engineering Department (PHE). Pursuant thereto, the deceased obtained the requisite licence and obtained a contract work valued at approximately Rs.55,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the applicant also worked in connection with the said contract and that certain monetary settlement between the applicant and the deceased remained outstanding. The prosecution story further alleges that on account of the financial difficulties allegedly arising out of the said contract work, the deceased had taken loans from banks and had also sold agricultural land/fields for arranging funds. The complainant, who is the wife of the deceased, has alleged that she used to tell her husband that the present applicant had taken advantage of him and was not paying his alleged share/dues. It is alleged that on 15.06.2026 the deceased 3 went to Bhilai for the purpose of discussing/finalising the settlement of accounts with the present applicant and for seeking return of his alleged money. Thereafter, the deceased returned to his village and allegedly told his mother that the applicant was not returning his money and was further assuring him that another contract in the PHE Department would be provided. Unfortunately, on 16.06.2026, the deceased consumed poison in his house situated at Village Borai and subsequently died, hence the police has registered the crime against the applicant and other accused persons. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution because the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS. There is no specific allegation that the present applicant intentionally instigated, conspired with, or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide. The allegations, even if taken at their face value, primarily relate to monetary/contractual dispute and do not, by themselves, constitute abetment of suicide. There is no allegation of any positive act of instigation on the part of the applicant. The prosecution has not attributed any specific words, threat, coercion, intimidation or conduct to the applicant whereby the deceased was allegedly provoked or compelled to commit suicide. Mere allegation of dispute regarding payment or settlement of accounts cannot automatically be treated as instigation to commit 4 suicide. The applicant was merely working as a daily - wage employee in the Public Health Engineering Department and had no authority to grant, allot or sanction any government contract. The said document prima facie demonstrates the limited status and nature of employment of the applicant and belies the allegation that the applicant had the authority or capacity to procure or allot a contract in the PHE Department to the deceased. The allegation that the applicant "brainwashed" or induced the deceased to obtain a contract in the PHE Department is wholly vague and unsupported by any specific material. No particular representation, inducement or fraudulent promise allegedly made by the applicant has been specified in the FIR so as to constitute intentional instigation or assurance, abetment. The applicant himself had advanced/given certain amount to the deceased and the applicant had merely requested the deceased to refund/return the amount due to him. Such a request for repayment of one’s own money cannot, in the absence of any threat, coercion or deliberate conduct intended to drive the deceased to suicide, constitute abetment of suicide. The prosecution case itself indicates that the deceased was facing substantial financial difficulties. As per the information available to the applicant, the deceased had taken loans from various persons and was under considerable financial stress. The deceased had also allegedly incurred liabilities in connection with his contracting activities. The existence of such independent financial 5 circumstances substantially weakens the alleged causal nexus between the conduct of the applicant and the unfortunate suicide. There is no proximate or immediate act attributable to the applicant which can reasonably be said to have left the deceased with no option except to commit suicide. The alleged contractual/financial dealings are stated to have continued over a considerable period, whereas the suicide occurred on 16.06.2026. The prosecution has failed to identify any specific act of the applicant immediately preceding the suicide which satisfies the legal requirement of instigation. The deceased was license holder contractor and dealing all the contractual work in the name M/s G.N.P. Constructions and all the amount which he received in his individual account. Therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submits that the deceased has left suicide note which runs into 19 pages detailing the circumstances in which the deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the deceased was facing substantial financial difficulties, as the deceased had taken loans from various persons and was under considerable financial stress, the deceased had also 6 allegedly incurred liabilities in connection with his contracting activities and there is no proximate or immediate act attributable to the applicant which can be said to have left the deceased with no option except to commit suicide, as the alleged contractual/financial dealings are stated to have continued over a considerable period, whereas the suicide occurred on 16.06.2026, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Naveen Kumar Verma, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He should 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 should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he should 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 sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He should not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Barve