1 2025:CGHC:2834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 417 of 2025 Noorjahan Begum D/o Shri Faijuddin Aged About 40 Years R/o Raurkela Fertilizer Township, Thana- Raghunathpalli, Distt.- Raurkela, Odisha. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Baradwar, District- Sakti (Erstwhile District Janjgir- Champa) (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 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. 296/2024, registered at Police Station : Baradwar, District- Sakti (Erstwhile District Janjgir- Champa) (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that based on a report filed by Dikeshwar Sahu at Police Station Baradwar, an FIR was registered alleging that the applicant, through collection agents/co- RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.17 20:11:56 +0530 2 accused persons, collected money from the complainant and others with the promise of providing double returns. However, the applicant allegedly used the collected amount for personal benefit. Based on this report, an FIR was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons under the aforementioned provisions. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits that the present applicant has not received any amount directly from the complainants and as per the prosecution case they have given the amount to the co-accused persons who were working as agents of the company and taken the money from the complainants. He further submits that the applicant is not the Director or Managing Director nor she is the proprietor of any investment company and she does not have any concern with the amount invested by the complainant and the main allegation is against the co- accused persons to whom the complainant had given the money. He further submits that the present applicant is a lady and she has no criminal antecedents and she is in jail since 21.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant, through collection agents/co-accused persons, collected money from the complainant and others with the promise of providing double returns. However, the applicant allegedly used the collected amount 3 for personal benefit. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court in the present application, therefore, the applicant 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 that the present applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents, in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and she is in jail since 21.11.2024 and 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 – Noorjahan Begum, involved in Crime No. 296/2024, registered at Police Station : Baradwar, District- Sakti (Erstwhile District Janjgir- Champa) (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 4 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, 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