1 2025:CGHC:48055 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7532 of 2025 Smt. Jeera Nishad W/o Bhola Ram Nishad Aged About 56 Years R/o Jai Hind Chowk, Ram Nagar, Gudhiyari, Police Station Gudhiyari, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Telibandha District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate (Through V.C.) For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. For Complainant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18/09/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 553/2025 registered at Police Station- Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has lodged KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 a written report before the concerned police station wherein it was alleged that on 07-09-2019, the complainant entered into an agreement with the applicant, her husband Bhola Ram(co-accused) and other Bhumuswamis, to buy their land bearing- (1) Khasra No. 200/6 area 0.506Hectare, (2) Part of Khasra No. 200/2 area 0.300Hectare, (3) Khasra No. 200/5 Area 0.202 Hectare, (4) Part of Khasra No 200/4 area 0.390 hectare, (5) Khasra No. 200/3 Area 0.180hectare, (6) Part of Khasra No. 200/1 Area 0.202 hectare, Total Khasra (land) 06, Total Land 1.78 Hectare at the rate of Rupees 2,75,00,000/- per acre. It is further alleged at the time of the agreement the applicant Jeera Nishad and her Husband Bhola Ram(Co-accused) had taken Rupees 36 Lakh Cash and Rupees 4 Lakh through cheque as advance (40,00,000.00 in total); instead of selling the land to the complainant, the applicant Jeera Nishad and her husband Bhola Ram(Co-accused) sold their portion of land-- Khasra No. 200/5 area 0.202 Hectare to Ritesh Kumar-someone other than the complainant. Therefore, the aforementioned offences were registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the maximum punishment imposable in the present case is up to seven years therefore the arrest of the applicant-being a lady-was not necessary. The agreement was done in the year 2019 and the complainant had to pay the whole amount within three months but the complainant could not pay the whole amount in that period of time. The applicant kept trying to ask the complainant to 3 get the sale complete up until 2022 but the complainant did not get the sale complete which is why the applicant had to sell the subject land to some other person, but after the applicant sold her land to one Ritesh Kumar, complainant party started to cause obstruction in the path of the subject land due to which the applicant-on 10- 02- 2025, lodged written complaint to the in charge of Police Station Telibandha. (In the said complaint, the name of the applicant is written as Jeera Bai Nishad by which the applicant is also known.). He further submits that the applicant had already made complaint to the Police Station Telibandha and the matter was with the knowledge of Police Station Telibandha but police station Telibandha registered the FIR on the same date without any inquiry whatsoever-despite the fact that the allegation involved a civil dispute. There is no ingredient of criminal breach of trust, nor is there any ingredient of deception therefore the offence registered against the applicant and her husband Bhola Ram(Co accused) is not made out and she is in jail since 30.08.2025 however, in the present case, charge-sheet has not been filed and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State as well learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant, along with her husband Bhola Ram (co- accused), had entered into an agreement to sell their land to the complainant and had taken an advance of ₹40,00,000/– (₹36 lakh in cash and ₹4 lakh by cheque). However, instead of executing the 4 sale deed in favour of the complainant, the applicant and her husband dishonestly sold a portion of the land (Khasra No. 200/5, area 0.202 hectare) to another person, namely Ritesh Kumar. Thus, the applicant has committed cheating and breach of trust, and further in the present case, charge-sheet has not yet filed therefore, she does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of dispute, the material available in the case diary, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into account that on a pointed query being made by this Court to the counsel for the objector as to how the transaction of Rs.40,00,000/– was made, it was informed that Rs. 36,00,000/– was allegedly paid in cash and Rs. 4,00,000/– by cheque, In view of the aforesaid aspects and also considering the fact that the applicant is a lady, this Court is of the opinion that, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it is a fit case to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Smt. Jeera Nishad, involved in Crime No. 553/2025 registered at Police Station- Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 3(5) of B.N.S, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the 5 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 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 6 trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dirurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal