Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3366 of 2025 Beer Singh Gond S/o Vishwanath Singh Gond Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Ahirantola, Bandhamuda, Police Station- Gourela, Distt.- Gourela- Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Gourela, District- Gourela- Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.05.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 180/2024, registered at Police Station : Gourela, District- Gourela- Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant Beer Singh Gond and co-accused Bhuneshwar Singh, both residents of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Village Girver, lodged a “Merg” intimation at Police Station Gourela, stating that the deceased, Shivani Singh Gond, had visited her maternal home at Dhanpuri on 17.04.2024 and returned to her matrimonial home at Ahirantola on 19.04.2024. It was also informed that the applicant Beer Singh was not present at the time, as he had gone to attend a marriage ceremony and returned on 19.04.2024 at about 4:00 PM. It was further stated that his wife, Shivani Singh Gond, slept inside the house, while he slept in the courtyard. At around 4:00 AM, feeling cold, he went inside the house to get a blanket and found his wife hanging by a sari and already deceased. Subsequently, based on Merg Intimation No. 54/2024, Police Station Gourela initiated an investigation and registered Crime No. 180/2024 under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, following which the present applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and the marriage between them was solemnized on 29.04.2023, and it was a love marriage, as has been stated by the brother-in-law of the deceased during the course of the investigation. It is submitted that the cause of death is hanging, with the only injury being a ligature mark, and there appear to be no other ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.05.2024, and till date, the trial is in progress; only seven formal witnesses’ statements have been 3 recorded, and the parents of the deceased have not appeared before the trial Court for recording of evidence, hence the trial is held up. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and after the marriage, the applicant and other co-accused harassed the deceased for dowry and subjected her to cruelty, which ultimately led her to commit suicide by hanging herself. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the present applicant is the husband of the deceased and the marriage between them was solemnized on 29.04.2023, and it was a love marriage, as has been stated by the brother-in-law of the deceased during the course of the investigation, further the cause of death is hanging, with the only injury being a ligature mark, and there appear to be no other ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased, further the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.05.2024, and till date, the trial is in progress; only seven formal witnesses’ statements have been recorded, and the parents of the deceased have not appeared before the trial Court for 4 recording of evidence, hence the trial is held up, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Beer Singh Gond, involved in Crime No. 180/2024, registered at Police Station : Gourela, District- Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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 5 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan