[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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.
(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
