Chattisgarh High Court
Vijay Puri Goswami vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14420
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2820 of 2026
1 - Vijay Puri Goswami S/o Shyam Sundar Puri Goswami Aged About 61
Years R/o Karan Nagar, Near Ruchi Riya Sadi Centre, Changorabhata,
Dindayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Wrongly
Mentioned As D.D. Nagar In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order)
2 - Abhishek Puri Goswami S/o Vijay Puri Goswami Aged About 31 Years
R/o Karan Nagar, Near Ruchi Riya Sadi Centre, Changorabhata, Dindayal
VAIBHAV
SINGH Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date: 2026.03.27
11:54:59 +0530
D.D. Nagar In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) ... Applicants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-
Dindayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant
For Applicants : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25.03.2026
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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 497/2025 registered at Police Station Dindayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 80, 3(5) of the BNS.
2
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, on 21.10.2025 the deceased who was the daughter in law of the applicant no. 1 and sister-in-law of applicant no. 2 has committed suicide by hanging in the matrimonial house and before her death she has uploaded a vide on her mobile alleging that the applicants along with other co accused persons used to harass her for dowry. She got married with the son of the applicant no. 1 on 16.01.2025
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that on 21.10.2025, an argument took place between the deceased and her husband over a trivial issue regarding a television remote, following which the unfortunate incident occurred, leaving the applicants and other co-accused in shock. The deceased and her husband (co-accused) were residing separately on the first floor of the same house. It is further submitted that from the date of marriage, i.e., 16.01.2025, till the date of the incident, no complaint or information was ever lodged by the deceased before any authority alleging harassment by the applicants or other co-accused persons. The challan has already been filed, and the applicants have been in judicial custody since 24.10.2025. No seizure of any incriminating articles or materials has been made by the police to substantiate the allegations made by the family members of the deceased. It is also submitted that the deceased had disputes with her husband regarding residing with the in-laws, and her behaviour towards the applicants and co-accused was often inappropriate. Moreover, co-accused Pushpalata Goswami has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court on 12.03.2026 in MCRC No. 2328/2026, which supports the 3 case of the present applicants on the ground of parity. The applicants are permanent residents of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of their absconding. They are ready and willing to furnish adequate sureties and undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court.
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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, the fact that they have no criminal antecedents, and also considering that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, and that the co-accused, namely Pushpalata Goswami, has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court on 12.03.2026 in MCRC No. 2328/2026, and further that the applicants have been in judicial custody since 24.10.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. The case of the present applicants is distinguishable from that of the husband of the deceased.
7. Let the Applicants - Vijay Puri Goswami and Abhishek Puri Goswami, involved in Crime No. 497/2025 registered at Police Station Dindayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 80, 3(5) of the BNS. , be released 4 on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
vaibhav