Chattisgarh High Court
Aman Rai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11702
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 376 of 2026
Aman Rai S/o Rajendra Ratre, Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 166,
Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 14, Navagarh, District Bemetara C.G.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Charge Of Mahila Thana, District
Durg C.G. ... Respondent
VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.12 11:27:11 +0530 For Applicant : Mr. Shashi Bhusan Tiwari, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.03.2026
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.09/2026 registered at Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 85 & 3(5) of the BNS. 2
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, the present case has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Smt. Heena Rai, who is the wife of the applicant. It is alleged that the complainant had a love marriage with the applicant which was solemnized on 07.07.2023. According to the complainant, after about one month of the marriage she came to know that the applicant was having illicit relations with another woman, and when she objected to the same, the applicant along with his family members, namely his parents and brother-in-law, started harassing her physically and mentally for dowry. It is further alleged that they demanded gold and silver jewellery and an amount of Rs.2,10,00,000/- and threatened her that she would be allowed to reside in the matrimonial home only after bringing the said amount. The complainant has further alleged that on 12.12.2025 the applicant left her at her parental home and told her that she could return to the matrimonial house only after fulfilling the said demand. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR has been registered and the applicant apprehends his arrest in the said crime.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. It is further submitted that due to matrimonial discord and personal differences between the husband and wife. The allegations made in the FIR are baseless, vague, general and omnibus in nature, without specifying any particular date, time, place or specific overt act attributable to the applicant, and therefore cannot form the basis for his arrest. It is further submitted that the dispute arises purely out of matrimonial differences and is essentially civil in nature, wherein allegations are often exaggerated. No recovery is required to be made from the applicant 3 and the case is based mainly on documentary and oral evidence already in possession of the prosecution, hence custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. It is also submitted that the parents and brother of the applicant, who are co-accused in the same FIR, have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 10.02.2026 and the case of the present applicant stands on identical footing. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a law-abiding citizen and there is no likelihood of repetition of the alleged offence. He undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The applicant is working as a compounder in a private hospital and enjoys a good reputation in the locality; if he is detained in jail, his entire family would suffer irreparable hardship. There is no possibility of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is also ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
4
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant - Aman Rai, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.
(b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
(d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav