1 2025:CGHC:58591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9794 of 2025 Kusum Yadav D/o Kamta Prasad Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sankara, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O昀케cer, Police Station Pandari, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. This is the Second Bail Application 昀椀led under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 361/2024, registered at Police Station- Pandari, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2171/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 on merits with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on 18.12.2024 the complainant, Monika Mirdha, submitted a written complaint at Police Station Pandari, Mova, District Raipur (C.G.), stating that between January 2024 to April 2024 she was residing at Dubey Colony, Mova, where the present applicant was also residing. Due to this, the complainant became acquainted with the applicant. The applicant allegedly introduced herself as a sta昀昀 nurse at Dr. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, and assured the complainant that her relative, Harish Patel, would be provided employment, for which she demanded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Relying on this assurance, the complainant transferred Rs. 75,000/- on 05.01.2024, Rs. 25,000/- on 10.04.2024, and Rs. 25,000/- on 12.04.2024. It is further alleged that the applicant issued a forged appointment order in favour of the complainant. On these allegations, the crime was registered and the charge sheet has been 昀椀led before the concerned Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application, earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2171/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 on merits with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. He further submits that the applicant has been in jail since 19.12.2024 and has, therefore, undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly ten months by the time this bail application is being considered. It is further submitted that the rejection order of other co-accused namely Harish Patel, was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 10714/2025, wherein the co-accused was granted bail vide order 3 dated 27.10.2025, and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that charge-sheet has been 昀椀led before the competent Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that this is the applicant’s second bail application and that the earlier application, MCRC No. 2171/2025, was rejected on merits on 19.03.2025 with a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously, further considering that the applicant is in jail since 19.12.2024 and has thus undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly ten months, also taking into account that the rejection order in respect of co-accused was subsequently challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 10714/2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail vide order dated 27.10.2025, hence this Court is of the considered view that, on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves to be released on bail. 8. Let the Applicant – Kusum Yadav, involved in Crime No. 361/2024, registered at Police Station- Pandari, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the 4 satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 昀椀le an undertaking to the e昀昀ect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 昀椀xed 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 昀椀xed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without su昀케cient 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 昀椀xed 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 昀椀xed 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 su昀케cient cause, then it shall be 5 open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 9. O昀케ce is directed to send a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan