1 2025:CGHC:38088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4579 of 2025 Shraddha Rajput W/o Raju Rajput Aged About 35 Years R/o Santoshi Nagar Boriyakhurd Rda Colony, P.S. Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Civil Lines, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 498/2015, registered at Police Station : Civil Lines, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 409, 120B of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the main accused Qamar Ejaz Ahmed is the proprietor of Iman Tours & Travels, had KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 taken about Rs. 35,00,000/- in advance from senior citizens and other people in the name of tour package, and without providing the tour package facility to the complainant and other customers, had illegally used the money and absconded, thereby deceiving not only the complainant, but also other customers in the case, in the name of tour package and embezzled about Rs. 35,00,000/- and the present applicant is working as receptionist in the company and she was also involved in the case as per the prosecution story. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in crime in question. He further submits that the name of the applicant has not been mentioned in the FIR and further there is nothing incriminating material has been seized to show the involvement in commission of crime in question. He further submits that the present applicant has been arrested by the police after 10 years and that too by calling her to the police station to cooperate with the investigation and when she came to cooperate, the police arrested her later from the same police station. The same has already been annexed in the Arrest memo of the charge-sheet.The FIR was lodged by the colleague of present applicant who was also working in the company not by any customer. Further, no bank details or account statement of the present applicant has been attached in the charge-sheet, so how it could be proved that the present applicant is involved in the present case. He further submits that the present applicant is a lady and was only working as a receptionist in the company of Iman Tours & Travels and police made her scapegoat in this present case, when 3 they didn't able to catch the main accused who is still absconding. He further submits that she is in jail since 03.05.2025 and she has no previous criminal antecedents further the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the co-accused, Qamar Ejaz Ahmed, proprietor of Iman Tours and Travels, allegedly collected an advance amount of ₹35 lakhs from senior citizens and other individuals under the pretext of offering tour packages. However, without delivering the promised services to the complainant and other customers, he misappropriated the funds and absconded. It is further submitted that the present applicant, who was employed as a receptionist in the said company, was also actively involved in the commission of the said offence. Accordingly, she is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 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 main accused namely Qamar Ejaz Ahmed who embezzled the amount of complainant and others of Rs. 35 lakhs, is still absconded and charge-sheet has been filed against him as an absconder and so far as the present applicant is concerned, she is a lady aged about 35 years, working under the main accused and 4 she has no criminal antecedents and she is in jail since 03.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let applicant, Shraddha Rajput, involved in Crime No. 498/2015, registered at Police Station : Civil Lines, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 409, 120B of IPC, be released on bail on furnishing 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 her absence, without sufficient 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 5 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 sufficient 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. Office 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 Kunal