1 2025:CGHC:61536 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9419 of 2025 Dhaneshwari Verma @ Priti Sharma W/o Rajesh Verma Aged About 29 Years At Oppo Jai Ambe Hospital, House Of Isha Sahu, Deopuri, Raipur (C.G.), Permanent Address Shankarpur, Ward No. 7, Shankarpur Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.12.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 352/2024 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 IPC. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 01.09.2024, the complainant Devki Dhruw submitted a written complaint at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar alleging that co-accused Swayam Sharma, posing himself as an INTUC worker and claiming influence in government services, promised to secure a job in the Railway Department. The complainant, along with her relative, visited the office Progressive Point, where she met Swayam Sharma and the accused Dhaneshwari Verma alias Preeti Sharma. They demanded Rs.1,50,000/- for arranging the job. The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- in cash and Rs.40,000/- through PhonePe to the accused. She was assured that she would be appointed as a Supervisor in the Railway Department within one week. Thereafter, the accused persons stopped responding to her calls and neither provided the job nor returned the money. Similarly, the accused persons allegedly collected lakhs of rupees, both in cash and online, from several other individuals on the false promise of providing government jobs. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 420/34 IPC. During investigation, a mobile phone used in the commission of the offence was seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of the accused, and the accused was arrested on 02.09.2024. The prosecution alleges that the accused acted in concert with other co-accused to cheat the complainant and several others. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail 3 application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 11.12.2024 in MCRC No.8064 of 2024, therefore this second bail application is filed on the ground that present applicant is a lady and her husband is already in jail, so far as the status of trial is concerned, out of 45 witnesses, statement of only 11 witnesses have been recorded, therefore, the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, further charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 02.09.2024, hence, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant in connivance with co-accused, actively participated in cheating the complainant and several others by falsely promising government jobs, particularly in the Railway Department, she allegedly received large amounts of money from victims, both in cash and through online transactions, on the pretext of arranging such jobs, but neither provided employment nor returned the amounts, 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. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2024 in MCRC No. 8064 of 2024 on the ground that as per case diary and the additional affidavit filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police revealed strong 4 prima facie evidence showing that the accused persons were running a fake job consultancy and had collected large sums of money from several victims, with about Rs.29,50,000/- being transferred directly into the applicant’s bank account. The applicant, being the wife of the main co-accused, was found to have actively used the accounts through which the cheated money was routed, as corroborated by the statement of her mother-in-law, but considering the fact that present applicant is a lady and her husband (co- accused) is already in jail, so far as the status of trial is concerned, out of 45 witnesses, statement of 11 witnesses have been recorded, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Dhaneshwari Verma @ Priti Sharma, involved in Crime No. 352/2024 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC, be released on bail on her 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 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. 5 (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 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil