1 2025:CGHC:30182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 941 of 2025 Tanisha Baghel D/o Rupesh Kumar Baghel Aged About 22 Years R/o Kudurmaal Devarmaal, Tehsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Aakash Ahuja, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 03.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.07/2025, registered at Police Station – Sakti, District- Sakti, (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318 (2), 318(4), 111(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed by the applicant in MCRCA No.791 of 2025 has been dismissed not on merits by this Court’s order dated 29.05.2025. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA 2 3. The case arises from a complaint by Mrs. Revati Mantraiwar, who, along with several other women, was allegedly duped by the applicant Mrs. Bhagwati Yadav, her husband, and other members of Flora Max Foundation. The accused promised to help the women get bank loans for self-employment and assured a monthly income of 2,700 for 24 ₹ months. Acting on these false assurances, the women took loans ranging from 230,000 to 240,000 from various banks and deposited a total of 238,70,000/- in the foundation's Sakti branch. While a few received goods like clothes and shoes, most were left empty-handed. Soon after, the foundation closed its branch and the accused absconded. An FIR was registered under Sections 318(2), 318(4), and 111(1)3(5) of the BNS, and investigation is currently underway. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of the said village and was never absconding. The applicant had no knowledge that any offence had been registered against her. He further argues that the applicant’s name has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused. He also submits that the applicant is a lady, she has no direct or indirect involvement in the alleged offence who had no involvement in the alleged offence, and her name has been falsely roped in due to enmity with a rival group. He further submits that the investigation has been completed, and However, other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 2647 of 2025 and MCRCA No.3353 of 2025. The evidence collected by the prosecution does not indicate any direct or indirect involvement of the applicant, except for 3 the memorandum statement of the co-accused. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, submitting that the accused promised to help the women get bank loans for self-employment and assured a monthly income of 2,700 ₹ for 24 months. Acting on these false assurances, the women took loans ranging from 230,000 to 240,000 from various banks and deposited a total of 238,70,000/- in the foundation's Sakti branch. Co-accused were arrested and sent to judicial custody, while the present applicant remained absconding. She further submits that the applicant has been absconding since the date of registration of the offence, and investigation against her is ongoing, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR, and from the perusal of the records available in the case diary, the accused promised to help the women get bank loans for self-employment and assured a monthly income of ₹2,700 for 24 months. Acting on these false assurances, the women took loans ranging from 230,000 to 240,000 from various banks and deposited a total of 238,70,000/- in the foundation's Sakti branch and the first bail application filed by the applicant in MCRCA No.791 of 2025 has been dismissed not on merits by this Court’s order dated 29.05.2025. and the applicant is stated to be absconding during the 4 entire trial, thus, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Tanisha Baghel involved in Crime No.07/2025, registered at Police Station – Sakti, District- Sakti, (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318 (2), 318(4), 111(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023., is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali