1 2025:CGHC:19415 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3273 of 2025 Shyama Bai W/o Tiharu Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Gujra, Tehsil Dondi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Police Station Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 816/2025 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Smt. Bhamati Kunjam, lodged a written complaint on 15/12/2024 at RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Police Station Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. It was alleged therein that one Kholbahar Nishad had approached several women in the village, including the complainant, and induced them to form self-help groups for the purpose of obtaining loans from various banks. The inducement was based on the assurance that the loan amounts would be invested in agricultural activities. The proceeds from such agricultural income would be used to repay the loans, and the remaining profit would be distributed among the group members as a bonus. Additionally, each member was promised a 10% commission on the loan amount as an incentive. Relying on these assurances, loans totaling Rs. 56,01,000/- were taken by the members of the groups. However, according to the complainant, only a portion of the said amount was repaid, and a substantial sum of Rs. 36,13,000/- remained unpaid. Consequently, based on these allegations, an FIR was registered against Kholbahar Nishad on 15/12/2024 for committing financial fraud and cheating. Subsequently, on 19/12/2024, the name of the present applicant was also included in the complaint, wherein the complainant made a general allegation that a part of the loan amount had also been handed over to the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. He further submits that nothing has been recovered form the possession of the applicant. He also submits that the applicant is illiterate lady aged about 60 years and subsequently, on 19.12.2024, her name was added in the 3 complaint, wherein the complainant made a general allegation that a part of the loan money was handed over to the present applicant. It is solely on the basis of this subsequent and vague allegation, without any specific detail. He further submits that the applicant has no prior criminal record and the applicant is in jail since 06.03.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that in this case, the applicant is illiterate lady aged about 60 years and subsequently, on 19.12.2024, her name was added in the complaint, wherein the complainant made a general allegation that a part of the loan money was handed over to the present applicant, it is solely on the basis of this subsequent and vague allegation, without any specific detail, nothing has been recovered form the possession of the applicant, further the applicant has no prior criminal record and the applicant is in jail since 06.03.2025, and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant- Shyama Bai, involved in Crime No. 816/2025 4 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, be released on bail on their 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 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 his absence, without sufÏcient 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, 5 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 her in accordance with law. 8. 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 Rahul Dewangan