1 2025:CGHC:18339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2773 of 2025 Anita Beg W/o Eliazer Kumar Aged About 40 Years R/o Alfa And Omega School Thakurpur, Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 213/2024 registered at Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.04.24 18:48:22 +0530 2 (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant who has lodged the written report against the present applicant along with other accused persons with intend that the applicant and her husband are director of company Dream Alpha Omega Multitrade Service Pvt. Ltd. and accused persons have promised to the complainants 50% of loan should be given to the borrower and 10% should be given to agent and 40% should be given to the said company if providing finance loan from the bank by the company and also promised to liability to repay the loan amount upon the said company, and after providing finance amount from the Bank, the company has repay of financed loan on some time and thereafter, the company has not provided repay of finance loan amount and like this the accused persons have embezzled the amount of Rs.81,34,937/- with the borrowers / complainant. Based upon the such complaint, the concerned police station has registered the offence under Section 420, 34 of the IPC against the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the alleged crime, she has not committed any offence as alleged against her. The entire allegation made against the applicant is false and fabricated because there is no any financial transaction been done in the name of the applicant and the applicant has not played any role in connection of this crime. The entire financial transaction has made 3 in between the applicant's husband and other accused persons and only on the basis of merely suspicious, the present applicant has falsely been implicated in connection of this crime without any sufÏcient reason and without any material available on record. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case solely due to her association as the wife of co-accused Elismer Kumar. There is no any documentary to prove the case and the prosecution did not produce any documents regarding subject documents such as loan agreement, beneficiary complaint or audit record. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents registered and is having two minor children and she is in jail since 25.01.2025 and if she and her husband both of them will take long time in jail, then the applicant would be adversely effected to take care of her minor children. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application of the applicant and also the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but could not dispute the fact that applicant has no previous criminal antecedents registered against her. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the entire financial transaction has been made in between the applicant's husband and other accused persons and applicant has been implicated in this case solely due to her association as the wife of co-accused Elismer Kumar, the applicant 4 has no previous criminal antecedents registered and is having two minor children and is in jail since 25.01.2025, charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 8. Let applicant, Anita Beg, involved in Crime No. 213/2024 registered at Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the IPC, 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya 5 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 sufÏcient 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manish