1 2026:CGHC:4410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 857 of 2026 1 - Jay Prakash Yadav S/o Shri Late Suraj Singh Yadav Aged About 40 Years (Jeth), R/o Village Jadavpur, Police Station Tiyar, District Bhojpur (Bihar), At Present R/o - Green View Colony, Khairpur, Quarter No. C- 610, In The House Of Agresh Singh, Police Station Kotra Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Saraswati Devi Yadav Wd/o Late Suraj Singh Yadav Aged About 58 Years (Mother In Law), R/o Village Jadavpur, Police Station Tiyar, District Bhojpur (Bihar), At Present R/o - Green View Colony, Khairpur, Quarter No. C-610, In The House Of Agresh Singh, Police Station Kotra Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House O<cer, Police Station - Kotra Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. This is the >rst bail application >led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 451/2025 registered at Police Station- Kotra Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh, (C.G.) for the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 oBence punishable under Sections 80(2), 3(5) and 238(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased, Mrs. Lalita Kumari, was married to co-accused Umesh Singh in February, 2022 in accordance with social customs, and prior to the marriage, on the demand of her in-laws, the deceased allegedly paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash, gave a gold chain to the husband and even sold her ancestral agricultural land. It is further alleged that after the marriage the applicants/accused demanded a Bullet motorcycle and upon failure of the deceased to ful>ll the said demand, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, as a result of which, being frustrated by continuous harassment, she jumped from the sixth Eoor of the rented building and sustained grievous injuries leading to her death, upon receipt of information regarding the incident, a case was registered at Police Station Kotra Road under Section 194 of the B.N.S.S. and the applicants/accused were booked for oBences under Sections 80(2), 3(5) and 238(B) of the B.N.S. in Crime No. 451/2025, thereafter they were arrested, hence the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case and are not involved in the alleged oBence in any manner. It is contended that the applicants, being the Jeth and mother-in-law of the deceased, have been roped in only by way of general and omnibus allegations and even if the entire charge-sheet is taken at its face value, no speci>c role or overt act is attributed to them. It is 3 further submitted that the main allegation regarding demand of a Bullet motorcycle is speci>cally levelled against the husband, namely Umesh Yadav, and not against the present applicants, and therefore their implication is wholly unjusti>ed. He further submits that the entire family has been falsely implicated and the minor child of the deceased, Surya Singh Yadav, aged about two years, is presently residing with neighbours as there is no one in the house to take care of him, which itself warrants a sympathetic consideration of the applicants’ bail. It is further submitted that the applicants are in jail since 05.11.2025, charge-sheet has already been >led, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been >led in the present case. He further submits that the prosecution case discloses grave and serious oBences wherein the deceased, Mrs. Lalita Kumari, was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty on account of dowry demands by the accused persons, which ultimately compelled her to jump from the sixth Eoor of the rented building, resulting in her death. It is contended that the allegations clearly attract the oBences under Sections 80(2), 3(5) and 238(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that the applicants are named accused in the crime and were actively involved in harassing the deceased. He further submits that the oBence is heinous in nature, relates to a young married woman and dowry death, and if the applicants are enlarged 4 on bail, there is every likelihood of their inEuencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations contained in the charge-sheet and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the speci>c and direct allegations with regard to demand of dowry and a Bullet motorcycle are mainly levelled against the husband of the deceased, namely Umesh Yadav, whereas the allegations against the present applicants, who are the Jeth and mother-in-law, are general and omnibus in nature and no speci>c overt act is attributed to them, making their case clearly distinguishable from that of the husband, further the fact that there is no suicide note or dying declaration on record to prima facie establish instigation or abetment on the part of the applicants, further, the applicants are in jail since 05.11.2025, the charge-sheet has already been >led and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude; therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Jay Prakash Yadav and Smt. Saraswati Devi Yadav, involved in Crime No. 451/2025 registered at Police Station- Kotra Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh, (C.G.) for the oBence punishable under Sections 80(2), 3(5) and 238(B) of the 5 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 >le an undertaking to the eBect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates >xed 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date >xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without su<cient 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 >xed 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 >xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 6 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without su<cient 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. 8. O<ce is directed to provide a certi>ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan