1 2025:CGHC:737 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9138 of 2024 Smt. Sanju Sen Wd/o Late Babulal Sen Aged About 45 Years R/o Housing Board Colony, Saddu, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Thro SHO, PS Golbazaar, Raipur, Chhttisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 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. 227/2017, registered at Police Station : Golbazaar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 120B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecution/police arrested the present applicant on 01/10/2024 in connection with a crime punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, and 120B of the IPC. It is alleged that the applicant is one of the accused who 2 availed a cash credit loan in the capacity of a partner in the partnership firm Sen Travels, where she was a partner with her husband, Babu Lal Sen. Initially, a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- was sanctioned based on the guarantee provided by Rameshwar Prasad Verma. Later, the cash credit (CC) limit was further increased to Rs. 5,00,000/- on the strength of an additional guarantee purportedly given by Rameshwar Prasad Verma. It is alleged that Rameshwar Prasad Verma was unaware of the subsequent processing of the CC limit increase to Rs. 5,00,000/- and did not consent to it. Furthermore, his purported signatures on the documents are alleged to have been forged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that unfortunately the present applicant’s husband has passed away on 12.06.2019. He also submits that all the procedures were done by her husband, she used to put signature on paper at the behest of her husband but as she is an illiterate homemaker she never bothered/cared about the papers on which her signatures were taken by her husband and this is quite normal in patriarchal Indian society where the husband is presumed to be discharging all his fiduciary duties. He further submits that investigation is complete in the case and applicant is a widow, she is not a flight risk and also evidence collected is documentary in nature so there is no scope for the poor widow to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and the present applicant is in jail since 01.10.2024 3 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 is one of the accused who availed a cash credit loan in the capacity of a partner in the partnership firm Sen Travels, where she was a partner with her husband, Babu Lal Sen. Initially, a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- was sanctioned based on the guarantee provided by Rameshwar Prasad Verma. Later, the cash credit (CC) limit was further increased to Rs. 5,00,000/- on the strength of an additional guarantee purportedly given by Rameshwar Prasad Verma. It is alleged that Rameshwar Prasad Verma was unaware of the subsequent processing of the CC limit increase to Rs. 5,00,000/- and did not consent to it. Furthermore, his purported signatures on the documents are alleged to have been forged. 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 unfortunately the present applicant’s husband has passed away on 12.06.2019 and all the procedures were done by her husband, she used to put signature on paper at the behest of her husband but as she is an illiterate homemaker she never bothered/cared about the 4 papers on which her signatures were taken by her husband and also considering the fact that in the present bail application the charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the present applicant is in jail since 01.10.2024 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 – Smt. Sanju Sen, involved in Crime No. 227/2017, registered at Police Station : Golbazaar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 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 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 5 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