1 2025:CGHC:50503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7038 of 2025 1 - Anita Devi Sahu W/o Ramanarayan Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Mahkam Chowki And Tehsil Sonakhan, P.S. Kasdol District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Kusum Rani Sahu D/o Ramanarayan Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Mahkam Chowki And Tehsil Sonakhan, P.S. Kasdol District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Janki Sahu W/o Devnarayan Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Mahkam Chowki And Tehsil Sonakhan, P.S. Kasdol District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, S.H.O. Police Station Kasdol District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasne, G.A. For Objector Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. This first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.433/2025 registered at Police Station – Kasdol, District -Balodabazar (C.G) for the offences VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.10.10 18:28:43 +0530 2 punishable under Sections 420,409,418, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 111 of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the the complainant Chhedilal Sahu came in contact of co-accused and during that he was offered to invest in share trading to double the amount invested, on such assurance the complainant invested total sum of Rs.39,10,000/- was invested to be doubled in period of two years, but applicants did not returned the amount thereby committed cheating with the complainant. Hence the offence has been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the case. He would submit that the applicants are not the beneficiary in the entire case and there is no evidence that applicants were involved in the above case and there is no material against the present applicants. He further submits that present applicants are the wife, daughter and sister-in-law of the accused namely Ramnarayan Sahu respectively. Further, applicants are in jail since 25.06.2025 and they have three criminal antecedent of similar nature at same police station, trial may take some time for conclusion. Therefore, he submits that the present applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the Objector, opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the present case is of the nature of fraud and due to which, the fraud was committed by the accused persons and the complainant has suffered of huge amount i.e. 39,10,000/- and as such, the applicants are not entitled to be 3 released on bail therefore, the applicant are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that present applicants are the wife and daughter and sister-in-law of the accused namely Ramnarayan Sahu, also considering the fact that the applicants are lady and they are in jail since 25.06.2025, and trial are likely to take time, therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicants. 7. Let the applicants – Anita Devi Sahu, Kumari Kusum Rani Sahu and Janki Sahu, involved in Crime No.433/2025 registered at Police Station – Kasdol, District -Balodabazar (C.G) for the offences punishable under Sections 420,409,418, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 111 of BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing a 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 he 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, 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 him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali