Surajpur (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Of
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:8377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1385 of 2025 Naziya Parveen D/o Shri Maqsood Ansari Aged About 28 Years W/o Late Shri Ibrahim, Caste - Muslim, Avra - Dugu, Bishrampur, Police Station - Bishrampur, District - Surajpur (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Bishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.). ---- Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 259/2024 registered at Police Station Bishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that from perusal of the case-diary, it appears that on 28.05.2024, the deceased namely Manoj Kumar Yadav allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself from a banyan 2 tree near the SECL nursery at Kunda Colony Road in Gram Karampur. In connection with this incident, Merg No. 51/2024 was registered at Vishrampur police station. Following the inquest, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against accused Najiya Parveen under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Crime No. 259/2024 at Vishrampur police station. After that the statements were recorded from Sonmatiya, Vijay Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Deepak Yadav, Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Sonu Kumar Yadav, Santosh Kumar Yadav, Vinay Raj Yadav, and Ayush Nayak. During the course of investigation, according to the case diary, accused Najiya Parveen allegedly abetted the suicide of Manoj Kumar Yadav by threatening to falsely implicate him in a rape case. Therefore, he committed suicide by hanging himself. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian penal Code. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998, has dealt this issue relating to section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and had drawn the line as to under what circumstances the offence under section 306 of the I.P.C. is made out. Similar Case has been dealt by Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the matter of Prakash Chand Vs. State of M.P, Reported in 2007 (1) C.G.L.J. (9) (M.P) have dealt the issue regarding section 306 of I.P.C. as to when it is not made out and the issue remains no more res- integra. As the applicant is a married lady and recently the husband of the applicant passed away and the applicant is blessed with a child to 3 take care. He further submits that the applicant has not committed any offence as levelled by the prosecution agency and she has been roped in such a false case and putting behind the bar anymore will cause inevitable circumstances for the applicant's future. The present applicant has been the victim of prosecution as the applicant is made as a scapegoat of the prosecution agency and to the decorum of justice and the applicant has been arrested only on the basis of suspicion and suspicion however strong cannot take the shape of incrimination and she is in jail since 13.12.2024 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time 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 from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the applicant/accused Nazia Parveen was instigating the deceased Manoj Kumar Yadav to commit suicide by threatening to implicate him in a rape case. Considering the entire facts of the case, it does not seem justified to grant bail to the applicant/accused Nazia Parveen at this stage. 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 levelled against the applicant and further the fact that from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the applicant/accused Nazia Parveen was instigating the deceased Manoj Kumar Yadav to commit suicide by threatening to implicate him in a 4 rape case. However, it appears that except ligature mark no other injuries were found on his body and further no suicide note was found from his possession and further there is no evidence against her to provoke him to commit suicide and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant -Naziya Parveen involved in Crime No. 259/2024 registered at Police Station Bishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under 5 Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal