AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Malda,(Hasaud), District Sakti (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 554 of 2025 1 - Laxman Kashyap S/o Mohan Lal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Malda (Hasaud), District Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Shatrughan Kashyap S/o Mohan Lal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Malda,(Hasaud), District Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Bharat Kashyap S/o Mohan Lal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Malda,(Hasaud), District Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate / Collector, Sakti, District Sakti (Police Station Hasaud, District Sakti) (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the 2 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. 125/2024 registered at Police Station Hasaud, District Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 80 r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.08.2024, the deceased consumed poison due to domestic abuse and harassment by the present applicants and other in-laws. She was immediately rushed to the Hospital, where she succumbed to death on 21.08.2024. A merg was subsequently registered at the concerned Police Station. Following an investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that there are nine accused persons involved in the present case, including the present applicants, the marriage of the deceased with applicant No.2 was solemnized on 03.05.2023 and from their wedlock a child is born, who is 6 months old and residing with grandmother. He also submits that there is bald allegation against the applicants that they and other co-accused had demanded motorcycle, fridge etc. as dowry, which result to suicide committed by deceased, but as per post-mortem report, cause of death is poisoning, further six of the co-accused persons, namely, Smt. Nirmala Bai, Leela Bai, Smt. 3 Bharatmati, Mela Bai, Jogen @ Jogendra and Budhvara Bai have granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order datedd 09.01.2025 in MCRCA No.26 of 2025. The applicants are in jail since 26.10.2024, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 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 filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicants alongwith other co-accused persons, who are other in-laws of deceased have harassed the deceased for demand of dowry, which result to suicide of deceased by poisoning, also the mother of deceased in her statement stated that the deceased had been harassed by the applicants and other in-laws for demand of dowry 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. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 26.10.2024, the fact that applicant No.2 is husband of deceased, applicant Nos. 1 and 3 are in-laws of the deceased, though they alongwith other co-accused persons, who are in-laws of deceased have harassed the deceased for demand of dowry, which result to suicide of deceased, also the mother of deceased in her statement stated that the deceased had been harassed by the applicants and other in-laws for demand of dowry, but as per post- 4 mortem report, cause of death is poisoning, further no eye-witness account, no dying declaration was recorded and no suicidal note was left behind by the deceased, also considering the fact that six of the co-accused persons, namely, namely, Smt. Nirmala Bai, Leela Bai, Smt. Bharatmati, Mela Bai, Jogen @ Jogendra and Budhvara Bai have granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order datedd 09.01.2025 in MCRCA No.26 of 2025, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Laxman Kashyap, Shatrughan Kashyap and Bharat Kashyap, involved in Crime No. 125/2024 registered at Police Station Hasaud, District Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 80 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing a 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 fixed, either personally or through their counsel. 5 In case of their absence, without sufÏcient 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 fixed 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 fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil