1 2026:CGHC:778 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2601 of 2025 1 - Ramdayal Das S/o Sukhram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Sakhaoli, Police Station Dhourpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dhourpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. For State : Ms. Alvin Juneja, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order On Board 06-01-2026 1. Pursuant to the order dated 11-12-2025, the notice issued to the victim/ complainant has been served upon relative of the victim, but no one appeared on their behalf to record their submission. Therefore, this Court proceeds to hear the present appeal finally. 2. The present appeal under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'Atrocities Act') has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 31-10-2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Special Sessions (Atrocities) Case No.45/2025 whereby the regular bail application of the appellant has been rejected. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 14-07-2025 the wife of the appellant has committed suicide by hanging herself inside her house and after her postmortem Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.06 18:43:30 +0530 2 the FIR has been registered on 30-07-2025 and after recording of the statement of the witnesses charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has been arrested on 11-08-2025. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no instigation to the deceased to commit suicide and there is no evidence that the appellant was actively instigated the deceased or provoked her to commit suicide. As per the statement of Amritram and Suresh Singh, he was with them throughout the day when the deceased Basanti committed suicide in her house. He would further submit that from the statement of Dileshwari, who is maternal aunt of the deceased it clearly reflected that the deceased was having love affair with the appellant and both of them were residing together, in such condition there was no possibility of any dispute or altercation between them. Though, there is allegation of marpeet on the date of incident itself with the deceased, but no injuries have been found on her body at the time of her postmortem and in the postmortem report the cause of death was opined that she died due to hanging. The ingredients to prove the offence of abetment to commit suicide is totally missing in the case. The applicant is in jail since 11-08-2025 and the final adjudication of the case will take its own time. Therefore, the present appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that from the statement of Dileshwari it appears that on the date of incident itself the appellant committed marpeet with the deceased and immediately thereafter she committed suicide by hanging herself inside her house. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence about instigation to the deceased upon which she committed suicide and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the appeal. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and the material collected during the 3 investigation and available in the charge sheet, further considering the statement of witnesses Amritram, Suresh Singh and Dileshwari and also the postmortem report, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. 8. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order dated 31-10-2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Special Sessions (Atrocities) Case No. 45/2025 is set aside. 9. It is directed that in the event of the appellant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on 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, and (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. 10. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only for consideration of the present appeal. The learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil