Chattisgarh High Court
Arun Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
2026:CGHC:14074
signed by
VAISHALI
VAISHALI LUCKY
LUCKY NAGARIA NAFR
NAGARIA Date:
2026.03.25
17:31:29
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 445 of 2026
• Arun Gupta S/o Visheshwar Prasad Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village Girhuldih, P.S. And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (CG)
... Applicant(s)
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Sitapur, District Surguja (CG)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.03.2026
1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.64/2026 registered at Police Station - Sitapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108 of BNS, 2023.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Mahesh Gupta father of the deceased gave intimation to the police outpost Kerju, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja on 19.08.2025 that that his daughter/deceased Neha Gupta, wife of Praveen Gupta, had committed suicide by hanging herself on which merg no. 159/2025 2 was registered and after merg inquiry FIR u/s 108 BNS was registered against the present applicant on 20.02.2026. Hence this offence.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He also submits that the applicant and the husband of the deceased, namely Praveen Gupta, are cousins and both families reside in the same neighborhood and share close family relations. It is further contended that deceased Neha Gupta was a married woman aged about 38 years and was the mother of a daughter who had developed intimate relationship with the son of the applicant namely Nikhil (deceased) who committed suicide because of deceased Neha Gupta and the present applicant had lodged police report and FIR against the deceased Neha Gupta and her mother. During a family trip to Mainpat in the year 2025, certain female members of the family allegedly saw the deceased Neha Gupta in an objectionable position with the applicant's son Nikhil (deceased), after which they informed the family members. That upon receiving such information, the applicant, being the elder member of the family, scolded his son Nikhil (deceased) and also called the deceased Neha Gupta to counsel her regarding the said conduct. Thereafter, on 20.06.2025, the deceased Neha Gupta allegedly called the applicant's son Nikhil (Deceased) to her residence and after returning from there, Nikhil (Deceased) committed suicide by injecting himself with poison. It is further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only to create pressure and in retaliation to the report earlier lodged by the applicant. He also submits that complainant repeatedly threatening the applicant and his family 3 members that if the application for investigation is not withdrawn, they will falsely implicate the applicant and his relatives in fabricated criminal cases. Thereafter the applicant lodged a report against the deceased Neha Gupta and her mother Sarita Gupta, on the basis of which a case was registered at Police Station Sitapur under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS in FIR No.63/2026. A copy of FIR No. 63/2026 under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS is annexed as ANNEXURE A/4. Therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non -
applicant/State, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, but could not dispute the fact that in the present case, a suicide note has been recovered; however, the applicant's name is not mentioned therein.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the fact that a counter FIR has been registered in the present case, and furthermore, the applicant's name is not mentioned in the suicide note, therefore, 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 - Arun Gupta, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
4
(a) The Applicant 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) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) The Applicant 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 their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.
(e)The Applicant shall not involve themself in any offence of similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali