Aman Rai vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 345 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 345 Chatt
Judgement Date : 11 March, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

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

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. 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

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.

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.