DHARAMCHAND JAISWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010372522026 2026:CGHC:45586
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9136 of 2026
Dharamchand Jaiswal S/o Late Ramadhar Jaiswal Aged About 52
•
Years R/o Village Rameshpur, P.S. Raghunathnagar, Distt.
Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Raghunathnagar, Distt.
•
Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. Government
Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
28.10.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this third bail application under Section
483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
regular bail, as he has been arrested on 19.07.2024 in connection
with Crime No. 31/2024, registered at Police Station Raghunathnagar,
District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 201, 304(B) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The first bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2024, whereas the

2
second bail application was rejected on merits by this Court vide order
dated 26.08.2025.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Merg Intimation No. 21/2024
was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, and, on the basis of thereof, an FIR was registered against an
unknown person. During the course of investigation, the post-mortem
examination of the deceased was conducted wherein the cause of
death was opined to be asphyxia due to strangulation. The time since
death was estimated to be 12-24 hours prior to the post-mortem
examination, and the nature of death was opined to be homicidal.
Further case of the prosecution is that on 30.04.2024, after having
dinner, the deceased Durgawati and her husband went to sleep. At
about 2.30 AM, when her husband woke up, he did not find his wife
beside him. Thereafter, he started searching for her. On the following
day, at about 6:00 AM, his mother informed him that his wife has
committed suicide by hanging herself from a tree. During the course
of investigation, the police arrested the applicant on the allegation that
he had subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with demand
for dowry, thereby committing the alleged offences.
3. The applicant has also annexed the copy of the order sheets of the
trial Court to demonstrate that the charges under Section 304-B read
with Section 201 of IPC have been levelled against the present
applicant whereas against the other co-accused persons, namely,
Ankit Jaiswal and Smt. Shivkumari Jaiswal, charges under Sections
302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and, alternatively, under Sections
304-B and 201 of IPC have been framed by the trial Court.

3
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Initially, he was not named as an accused, and subsequently, during
the course of investigation, he was arrested and arrayed as an
accused in the charge-sheet. He would further submit that out of 40
prosecution witnesses, only 7 witnesses have been examined so far,
and 33 witnesses are yet to be examined. He would also submit that
the deceased was allegedly involved in a love affair and was carrying
pregnancy of 8 weeks and 3 days. Considering that the marriage
between the applicant and the deceased was solemnized on
22.06.2023, the possibility of the deceased having a love affair cannot
be ruled out. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the essential
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC
are prima facie not established against the applicant. He would further
submit that the applicant is in jail since 19.07.2024 and more than 2
years, 3 months and 8 days have already elapsed and no progress
has been taken place in the trial as only 7 witnesses have been
examined and remaining witnesses are not appearing before the trial
Court, resulting in delay in conclusion of the trial. Thus, he would pray
for releasing the applicant on bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposing the bail application would
submit that the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC is a heinous
offence relating to the death of a married woman in connection with
demand of dowry. She would further submit that the deceased died
under abnormal circumstances within six months of her marriage. She
would further submit that the other co-accused persons have been

4
charged under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the IPC, whereas
the present applicant has been charged under Sections 304-B and
Section 201 of the IPC. Considering the gravity and seriousness of
the offence, learned State counsel prays for rejection of the bail
application.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
7. In the present case, from the material available in the case diary,
particularly the merg intimation and the post-mortem report, it prima
facie emerges that the deceased died an unnatural death due to
asphyxia resulting from strangulation, and the nature of death has
been opined to be homicidal. The prosecution case further indicates
that the deceased was allegedly subjected to cruelty on account of
suspicion regarding her character and, thereafter, her body was found
hanging from a tree.
8. At this stage, the material available on record, particularly the
circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased, the nature of
the allegations against the applicant and the medical evidence
indicating homicidal death, cannot be ignored while considering the
prayer for grant of bail. Further, the fact that the applicant is the
husband of the deceased and the death occurred within the period
contemplated under Section 304-B of the IPC also assumes
significance.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Chetram Verma vs. State of
Uttarpradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 770/2026, decided on

5
09.02.2026 , has emphasised that while considering a bail application
in a case involving the unnatural death of a married woman, the Court
must take into consideration the nature of the offence, the relationship
between the accused and the deceased, the circumstances in which
the death occurred, the post-mortem findings and the statutory
presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023, corresponding to Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“18. We do not propose to observe anything on merits because
we are conscious of the fact that the trial is in progress.
However, at the same time, we are sure that the impugned
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in law.
19. The impugned order has led to travesty of justice. It was
expected of the High Court to consider the bail application
keeping in mind:-
(i) The nature of the alleged crime;
(ii) The punishment provided by the BNS 2023 for the
alleged crime;
(iii) The relations between the accused and the
deceased, i.e., being husband and wife;
(iv) The place where the incident occurred;
(v) The postmortem report indicating that the cause of
death was asphyxia due to strangulation and most
importantly, the statutory presumption of commission of
offence as envisaged under Section 118 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, erstwhile Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act, 1872.
20. Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
reads thus:
“118. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question
is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such
woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or
harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had
caused the dowry death. Explanation.—For the purposes
of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same
meaning as in section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.

6
21. We are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be
set aside. We should direct the respondent no.2 (original
accused) to immediately surrender before the Trial Court. Once
he surrenders before the Trial Court, he shall be sent to judicial
custody.”
10. From the case diary and the merg intimation wherein it has been
mentioned that the deceased succumbed to death due to
strangulation on the count of doubt regarding the character of the
deceased and thereafter, she was hanged and looking to the
submissions itself, it is quite vivid that the applicant may be involved in
the commission of offence alleging the character of the deceased,
therefore, prima facie involvement of the applicant exists, as such, I
am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
11. Accordingly, third bail application is also rejected.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Manish