2026:CGHC:7668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.1501 of 2026 Anju Singh Chouhan W/o Shri Keshar Singh Chouhan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Khokhasa Ward No.- 10 Chouki Naila District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station District- Magistrate, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________

For Applicant :Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

11.02.2026 SISTLA 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1^st Bail Application under NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.12 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No.972/2025 registered at Police Station – Police Out Post Naila, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 80(2)

and 3(5) of BNS Act.

2. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was the wife of co-accused Mahendra Singh Chouhan, who is the son of the present Applicant. After the marriage, the deceased was allegedly subjected to mental as well as physical cruelty by the co-accused and the present Applicant in connection with unlawful demand of dowry. It is alleged that due to such harassment and misbehavior, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 27.09.2025. The matter was reported to the police, upon which investigation was conducted and the Applicant, along with the co-accused, was arrested in connection with the said incident. Hence, this application.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, who is languishing in jail since 09.11.2025. It is contended that the Applicant, being the mother-in-law of the deceased, was residing in a separate house distinct from the matrimonial home of the deceased and therefore, in the absence of a common household, the allegation of frequent harassment or proximity as required under law is not made out. It is further submitted that for attracting the offence under Section 80(1) of the BNS, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty “soon before her death”; however, at the relevant time, the deceased was residing at her parental home and not with the Applicant, thereby breaking the live link necessary to sustain the charge. Learned counsel also submits that the marriage between the deceased and the co-accused, who is the son of the Applicant herein, was a love marriage performed against the wishes of the deceased’s parents, who never accepted the matrimonial alliance or the Applicant who had supported the same and hence the present FIR is alleged to be retaliatory in nature. It is further contended that no specific overt act or direct role has been attributed to the Applicant, which could have driven the deceased to commit suicide and the allegations against her are omnibus and vague, without any specific dates or instances of dowry demand, reflecting a tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence and no further custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required and therefore the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the Applicant are serious in nature, relating to cruelty and harassment for dowry which ultimately resulted in the suicidal death of the deceased within the matrimonial fold. It is contended that the statements of prosecution witnesses and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the involvement of the Applicant in su