[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Surendra Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11452
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2109 of 2026
Surendra Verma S/o Lt. Gunuram Verma Aged About 20 Years R/o Village-
Belgaon, P.S. And Tehsil- Thankhamariya, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Thankhamariya (Khamariya),
District- Bemetara (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted
by Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
SHRIVAS
Date:
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
2026.03.11
11:39:20
+0530
Order on Board
10.03.2026
1.
This is the First 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. 150/2025 registered
at Police Station - Thankhamariya (Khamariya), District Bemetara
(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 107, 108, 3(5)
of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 84 of Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015.
2. The prosecution case, in brief is that Police Station Thankhamariya
received the inquest diary from the Investigating Officer, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Bemetara, for registering the First Information
Report regarding the death of Kavita Verma, W/o Surendra Verma, on
the basis of merg intimation bearing No. 19/2025 given by one Rajesh
Kumar, Peon, C.H.C., Saja. On the basis of the said merg intimation, a
First Information Report bearing No. 150/2025 was registered for the
offences under Sections 137(2), 108 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., and after
investigation, Section 107 of the B.N.S. and Section 84 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015 were also added. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the
present applicant is the husband of the deceased and, despite knowing
that she was a minor, he abducted her and assaulted her to such an
extent that she committed suicide. It is further alleged that the other co-
accused persons, namely Sitaram and Atibai, who are the uncle and
mother of the present applicant respectively, used to taunt the deceased
by saying that she had come there after eloping, and due to such
harassment the deceased committed suicide on 30.06.2025 by
consuming a poisonous substance. After completion of the investigation,
the police arrested the present applicant along with the other co-accused
persons on 23.09.2025.
3. Ms. Singhai, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
submitted that there is no material available on record to show that, by
any direct or indirect act of the present applicant, the deceased
committed suicide. It is submitted that the present applicant and the
deceased were in a love affair and both got married on 12.05.2025. They
were having cordial relations. In such circumstances, it cannot be said
that the present applicant engaged in any act so as to constitute the
alleged offence; therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is a well-
settled principle of law that the presence of mens rea and the intention to
abet the act are essential ingredients to constitute an offence under
Sections 107 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Therefore,
mere allegations of harassment are not sufficient to constitute the offence
of abetment of suicide. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to
establish that any active or direct act on the part of the present applicant
led the deceased to take her own life. Hence, the present applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is pertinent to mention that, from the
bare perusal of the First Information Report and the entire charge-sheet,
it is revealed that the deceased married the present applicant after
eloping with him as they were in a love affair. The father of the deceased
was well aware of this fact. In these circumstances, the prosecution story
does not appear to be reliable. As a matter of fact, the prosecution,
merely on vague allegations that the present applicant took the deceased
with him and assaulted her, has implicated the present applicant in the
present case. It is important to mention that the deceased used to video
call her parents even after marrying the present applicant. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the present applicant had abducted her or instigated
her to commit suicide. It is noteworthy that no complaint had been lodged
by the family members of the deceased at the relevant time, which itself
shows that, due to their love affair and belonging to the same caste, the
deceased and the present applicant got married with the knowledge of
the members of both families. Therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot
be said that the present applicant instigated the deceased to commit
suicide. It is further submitted that there is no suicide note was left behind
by the deceased to suggest that the present applicant was involved in the
alleged crime. It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 23.09.2025,
conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, she prays for grant
of regular bail to the present applicant.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet
has already been submitted in the present case before the competent
Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by the learned counsel for both parties, and the fact that no suicide
note was left behind by the deceased to suggest the involvement of the
present applicant in the alleged crime, and further considering that the
charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court
and that the applicant has been in jail since 23.09.2025, and that the
conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view
that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case.
7. Let the applicant - Surendra Verma, involved in Crime No. 150/2025
registered at Police Station - Thankhamariya (Khamariya), District
Bemetara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 107,
108, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 84 of Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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
he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause,
the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during
trial and in order to secure his 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 him, 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 him 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 forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek
