Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Vimla Bai Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
MCRCA No. 973 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe
For the Respondents: Ms. Ankita Shukla, Mr. Kashish Saluja
Anticipatory bail granted due to insufficient evidence against the applicant and the context of family disputes.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 108 and 3(5) - Anticipatory bail application - Applicant apprehending arrest for alleged involvement in suicide case - Court grants anticipatory bail considering the nature of allegations and family dispute context. (Paras 1, 6, 7)
(B) Bail - Grant of anticipatory bail is contingent upon the applicant not influencing witnesses or engaging in similar offences - Conditions imposed to ensure fair trial. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant faced allegations related to the suicide of her father-in-law, which was claimed to be due to property disputes and harassment by the applicant's family. The FIR was lodged by her brother-in-law, alleging harassment as a cause for the suicide.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the application for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need to consider the gravity of allegations and family disputes surrounding the case.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of allegations against the applicant and the legitimacy of the FIR based on family disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail, noting the lack of substantial evidence against her and the family dynamics involved in the case.
Result: The anticipatory bail application is allowed with specific conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of harassment leading to suicide and property disputes. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. opposition to bail application by state and complainant. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's assessment of evidence and family dynamics. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. conditions for granting anticipatory bail. (Para 7) |
Order on Board
04.07.2025
1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 198/2025 registered at Police Station – Sakti, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ).
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the incident was taken place on 01.04.2025, the FIR of the incident was lodged by the son of the deceased namely Jitendra Sahu inter alia on the allegations that, due to the harassment by the applicant and her family members i.e. the widow of the Chitendra for the share in the property, Mahettar Ram Sahu committed suicide by hanging himself. It has been alleged that, in the suicide note left by the deceased it is quite apparent that due to the harassment and pressure for partition in the property of Mahettar Ram Sahu, he has committed suicide. Hence, this application.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that admittedly the Mahettar Ram Sahu has inherited the property from his ancestors and he had two sons namely Chitendra (husband of applicant) and Jitendra, and Chitendra and Jitendra were having the equal shares in the property but unfortunately Chitendra died on 04.07.2024, after the death of Chitendra, the other son of Mahettar Ram Sahu was not interested for giving any share to the applicant, and just to inherit the entire property of Mahettar Ram Sahu, the younger brother of Chitendra got executed gift deed in favour of his sone namely Bhupesh in respect of 0.48 dismil of land, and got executed the sale deed in favour of his son for 2.10 dismil of land in favour of Bhupesh. Looking to the family dispute the social meeting was also held in the village by intervention of elder members of society, and in the said meeting Mahettar Ram Sahu the father-in-law of the applicant Vimla Bai, has assured that Vimla Bai and her children will be given the appropriate share in the property, due to the said statement Jitendra was not happy and due to which Jitendra and his family members have left Mahettar Ram Sahu alone for few days, and all of a sudden on 01.04.2025 the Mahettar Ram Sahu committed suicide by hanging himself, and taking advantage of the same the FIR was lodged by Jitendra on a false allegations. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in this case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation leveled against the applicant, and from the perusal of the case diary it transpires that admittedly the Mahettar Ram Sahu has inherited the property from his ancestors and he had two sons namely Chitendra (husband of applicant) and Jitendra, and Chitendra and Jitendra were having the equal shares in the property but unfortunately Chitendra died on 04.07.2024, after the death of Chitendra, the other son of Mahettar Ram Sahu was not interested for giving any share to the applicant, and just to inherit the entire property of Mahettar Ram Sahu, the younger brother of Chitendra got executed gift deed in favour of his sone namely Bhupesh in respect of 0.48 dismil of land, and got executed the sale deed in favour of his son for 2.10 dismil of la
