[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
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. 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
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
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
