1 2025:CGHC:19997 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3353 of 2025 Gudiya Devi Rajput W/o Raju Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o By Pass Road Emli, Duggu, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Korba, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Master Police Station Mahasamund Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No – 585/2024, registered at Police Station – Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 and 10 C.G. Depositor Interest Act, 2005. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that, on 04.02.2024, a person named PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.02 17:59:54 +0530 2 Akhilesh Singh opened the ofÏce of Flora Max Company in Pritam Pride Complex, Swami Chowk Mahasamund, and the applicant being the treasurer of the said company, through other female accused, showed the dream of self-reliance to innocent women, and introduced himself as the agent of the said company, and made them deposit thirty thousand rupees per woman for small businesses like sarees and ration items etc. and when the said amount was not arranged, he got loans from vaarious banks, got the said goods arranged by Akhilesh Singh and got the amount invested any by luring them with a salary of Rs. 2,700/- per month/-, got it deposited in the account of the applicant/accused Gudiya Singh in Flora Max Company, and by conspiracy and fraud, embezzlement has been committed. After investigation, a case has been registered and charge-sheet has been filed. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has three previous criminal antecedents registered in Crime Nos. 517/2024, 703/2024 and 283/2024, out of which in two cases, he has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court and in one case, he has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025 passed in MCRC No. 2647/2025. He also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 24.01.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has one three previous criminal antecedent. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the 3 documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has three previous criminal antecedents, out of which in two cases, he has been granted bail by the Trial Court and in one case, he has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025 passed in MCRC No. 2647/2025, further the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 24.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Gudiya Devi Rajput, involved in Crime No – 585/2024, registered at Police Station – Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 and 10 C.G. Depositor Interest Act, 2005, 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 4 cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 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 him, 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 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. 8. OfÏce 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 Preeti