1 2025:CGHC:28176 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4911 of 2025 Sangeeta Devi D/o Radhe Aged About 36 Years W/o Tarachand Panika, R/o Village Police Station Raghrnathpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 35/2024 registered at Police Station Raghunath Nagar, District – Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. As per the prosecution, in brief, the complainant and the co- accused are siblings. The co-accused, Sangita Devi, had filed an ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.27 10:39:48 +0530 2 application claiming her share in the ancestral property, which was registered in the names of her brothers. Subsequently, an order was passed in her favour. Thereafter, based on certain financial considerations, she filed another application requesting deletion of her name from the revenue records, and the order was passed accordingly. However, Sangita Devi once again filed an application for mutation of her name in the revenue records. The present applicant is a subsequent purchaser of the share of the property belonging to Sangita Devi. Being the daughter, Sangita Devi’s name was mutated in the revenue records, and thereafter, she sold her share to the applicant after receiving the due sale consideration. Subsequently, the complainant, namely Anil Kumar Sahu, son of Late Radheshyam Sahu, submitted a written complaint before the concerned police station. Based on the said complaint, an FIR was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the applicant is a sibling, and her name was mutated in the revenue records in relation to joint family property. Being a married daughter, Sangita Devi had a rightful share in the joint family property. As her name was not initially mutated by her siblings, she filed an application to have her name included along with other co-parceners. Ultimately, the application was allowed, and her name was duly mutated in the revenue records. She then intended to sell her share, which was subsequently purchased by Benimadhav Gupta. Therefore, no 3 offence has been committed. He also submits that the co-accused, namely Shyam Kishore Jaiswal, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 642/2024 on 18.06.2024. The allegation against him was that, in his capacity as Patwari, he mutated the name of Sangita Devi in the revenue records. Further, other co-accused, namely Rohit Kerketta in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1168/2024 and Benimadhav Gupta in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 740/2024, have also been granted bail. Copies of the Hon’ble Court’s orders passed in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 642/2024, M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1168/2024, and M.Cr.C.(A) No. 740/2024 are collectively filed herewith as Annexure A-2. He further submits that the complainant and other siblings cannot deny the share of Sangita Devi, who is the daughter of Late Radheshyam Sahu. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and she is in jail since 03.06.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge - sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 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 that other co-accused person, namely Shyam Kishore Jaiswal and Rohit Kerketta, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 642/2024 on vide order dated 18.06.2024 4 and M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1168/2024 vide order dated 15.10.2024, Benimadhav Gupta in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 740/2024 vide order dated 11.07.2024, have also been granted bail, moreover, though the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the competent Court in the present case, the applicant being a lady has no criminal antecedents and she is in jail since 03.06.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Sangeeta Devi, involved in Crime No. 35/2024 registered at Police Station Raghunath Nagar, District – Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on her 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. 5 (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, 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 Abhishek