Chattisgarh High Court
Suraj Bai Joshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12467
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2459 of 2026
Suraj Bai Joshi W/o Late Radheshyam Joshi Aged About 45 Years R/o
Ranvabhata, Ward No. 11, Khamtarai Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, (SHO), P.S. Khamtarai
District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
ABHISHEK
Date:
SHRIVAS
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
2026.03.17
16:39:06
+0530
Order on Board
16.03.2026
1.This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 56/2025 registered at Police Station - Khamtarai, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109 of the of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 5007 of 2025 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 30.06.2025.
3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant Shiv Kumar Banjare 2 lodged a complaint stating that the present applicant is his second wife. It is alleged that since the complainant used to visit both his wives, the present applicant used to forbid him from visiting his first wife and demanded money and property from him. It is further alleged that on 14.01.2025, when the complainant returned after meeting his first wife, the applicant started abusing him and quarreling with him. At about 11:30 P.M., she allegedly removed the pipe of the gas cylinder, secured the latch of the verandah door, and lit a burning wood/stick behind his bed, as a result of which the room caught fire and the complainant sustained burn injuries. Thereafter, he immediately rushed to the house of his first wife, who took him to the hospital for treatment. It is further alleged that after 10 days of the incident, on 24.01.2025, FIR No. 56/2025 was registered at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, under Section 109 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested on 25.01.2025. It is also alleged that a dying declaration of the complainant was recorded while he was admitted to the hospital, i.e., on the fourth day after the incident.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, premised on the ground of change in circumstances, particularly after the examination of material witnesses. It is contended that a significant change has occurred in the present case, as key prosecution witnesses have now been examined. PW-3, Rukhmani, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of her deposition, has categorically stated that the FIR was lodged in a state of anguish. Further, the victim (PW-1) has deposed that he lodged the report primarily because the applicant did not come to see him in the hospital. It is further submitted that there were prior altercations between 3 the two wives of the complainant, and the FIR appears to have been lodged to avoid further complications, particularly in light of the presence of the first wife's family, which could have aggravated the situation. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant, being a lady Swasth Sevika, had gone to assist a female relative with delivery on the same night and was, therefore, not present at the place of occurrence. With regard to the allegation that the applicant left the gas pipe open, it is argued that the same is not tenable, as such an act would have resulted in a major explosion, potentially destroying the entire house. This is not supported by the deposition of the victim. It is further submitted that, as of now, only 3 out of 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The applicant, being a woman, has been in judicial custody since 24.01.2025. Additionally, in his deposition, the complainant has admitted that he did not see anyone placing a burning stick or any inflammable object beneath his bed. He has also stated that he met his first wife prior to giving the dying declaration. It is submitted that the first wife had prior enmity with the present applicant (second wife), thereby raising a reasonable apprehension of undue influence on the dying declaration. Furthermore, the complainant/victim (PW-1), in paragraph 16 of his deposition, has stated that he initially informed the hospital authorities that the incident may have occurred while he was lighting a cigarette and that a possible gas leak could have caused the fire. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 25.01.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant regular bail to the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge sheet has already been filed in 4 the present case. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave in nature; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the fact that this is the second bail application based on a change in circumstances, and that material witnesses have already been examined, coupled with the contradictions emerging from their depositions, including the version of the victim, this Court finds that the prosecution case requires further appreciation during trial. It is also noted that only 3 out of 12 witnesses have been examined, the applicant is a woman, and she has been in custody since 25.01.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
8. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant - Suraj Bai Joshi, involved in Crime No. 56/2025 registered at Police Station - Khamtarai, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109 of the of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.5
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek