Mayank Chhallani S/o Shri Vinod Chhallani Aged About 38 Years R/o Ganj Road, Nawapara v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gobra- Nawapara District Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37749 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5976 of 2025 Mayank Chhallani S/o Shri Vinod Chhallani Aged About 38 Years R/o Ganj Road, Nawapara, P.S. Gobra- Nawapara District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gobra- Nawapara District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
attributed to the applicant that would prima facie establish that he had either instigated, provoked, or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide, cause of death is hanging, so far as other co- accused persons are concerned, co-accused persons, namely, Surit Jain and Abhay Jain have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 28.07.2025 and 18.07.2025 in MCRCA Nos. 1106 of 2025 and 1052 of 2025, respectively, 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. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Let the Applicant-Mayank Chhallani, involved in Crime No. 245/2025 registered at Police Station Gobra- Nawapara District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 108, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 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:- 7. 8. 5 (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 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. 9. 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
Arguments
Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31/07/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 245/2025 registered at Police Station Gobra- Nawapara District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 108, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the incident, July 30, 2024, the deceased took his own life by hanging. Almost a 2 month after the initial investigation, on August 2, 2024, the deceased's father, Mahendra Jain, presented a suicide note. In the note, the deceased wrote that his family members were not responsible for his death. Instead, he held Abhay Dao, Mayank Chhallani, Jittu Bhangani, Surit Jain, and Vikas Bhangani accountable, as they had sold his shop for Rs.7,55,000/- and had not returned Rs.9,80,000/-, which was the deceased's savings from his agricultural activities. The deceased mentioned that he was troubled by their refusal to return the money, which led him to take this step. Upon investigation, it was found that the above-mentioned individuals had sold the deceased's house and shop and had not returned the sale amount, which led to the deceased being driven to commit suicide. Consequently, an offense under Section 108, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was registered, and the case was taken up for investigation. The present applicant was arrested on 04.07.2025, Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the applicant has falsely been implicated by the police and have no knowledge of any offense committed. The applicant further submits that he never instigated the deceased to commit suicide, and therefore, there is no question of any abetment. He further submits that upon perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the deceased's father has mentioned in the report that his deceased son was also addicted to gambling and betting, and he committed suicide by hanging himself in his room due to debt. Furthermore, there is no evidence against him, and the FIR does not contain any allegation that the applicant instigated the 3 deceased to commit suicide. Instead, it appears that the deceased son of the complainant was facing a significant financial crunch and took the decision to commit suicide on his own. He also submits that upon perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the deceased mentioned selling the house-shop for Rs.7,55,000/- and registering it for a lower amount, with an outstanding amount of Rs.9,80,000/- not being returned. However, the FIR lacks clarity on the actual sale amount and registration amount. Furthermore, no sale deed or registration documents have been presented, nor is there any agreement on record that can corroborate the deceased's statements. So far as other co-accused persons are concerned, co- accused persons, namely, Surit Jain and Abhay Jain have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 28.07.2025 and 18.07.2025 in MCRCA Nos. 1106 of 2025 and 1052 of 2025, respectively. The applicant is in jail since 04.07.2025, 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 opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant alongwith co- accused persons allegedly sold the complainant's shop for Rs.7,55,000/- and had not returned the sale amount, which led to the deceased being driven to commit suicide, therefore the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 4 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 04.07.2025, though the allegation against the applicant that he alongwith other co-accused persons had provoked the deceased to commit suicide, but FIR and case diary reveal that the deceased was engaged in gambling and betting activities, as a result of which he had accumulated substantial debts. There is no specific overt act