1 2025:CGHC:56106 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9295 of 2025 Minakshi Manjhi D/o Late Hari Singh Manjhi Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 107, Sector-16, Block No. 33, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Banhiman Roy, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 53/2025 registered at Police Station - Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 338, 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned Police Station alleging that the accused RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 persons committed embezzlement of a total amount of Rs. 9,91,20,877.69 through the ID of the C.G. State Co-operative Bank Maryadit, Branch Baramkela. Based on the said complaint, the police registered an offence under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 338, 318(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against unknown persons. It is further submitted that merely on the basis of suspicion and a memorandum statement, the police have arrested the present applicant in connection with the said crime. Hence, the present bail application has been preferred. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an innocent lady who has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence and has not committed any act constituting the crime in question. It is submitted that the applicant was merely working as a Computer Operator in the concerned bank and had no role whatsoever in the alleged embezzlement, rather, she has been implicated only on the basis of mere suspicion and a memorandum statement, without any substantive material. It is further argued that as per the enquiry report dated 07.11.2024, the applicant was on sanctioned medical leave from 20.10.2024 to 06.11.2024 and was not present on duty at the time of the alleged transactions, clearly ruling out her involvement, the said report is filed as Annexure A-3. He also submits that the main accused Manager D.R. Baghmare and co-accused Khirdas Mahant and Ashish Patel have already been granted regular bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 in M.Cr.C. Nos. 5325/2025, 7502/2025, and 8700/2025, respectively, and on the ground of parity, the present 3 applicant is also entitled to similar relief. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and she is in jail since 10.07.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, 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 charge- sheet has been submitted in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the investigation reveals serious financial irregularities involving embezzlement of a huge amount of Rs. 9,91,20,877.69 from the C.G. State Co-operative Bank Maryadit, Branch Baramkela, and the role of the present applicant has surfaced during the course of investigation. He further submits that the offences registered under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 338, 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are grave and serious in nature, and the applicant’s involvement cannot be ruled out at this stage. It is further submitted that the arrest of the applicant is based on material collected during investigation, and not merely on suspicion or the memorandum statement alone. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the co-accused Manager D.R. Baghmar, Khirdas Mahant and Ashish Patel have already been granted 4 regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 in M.Cr.C. Nos. 5325/2025, 7502/2025, and 8700/2025, respectively, further the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and she is in jail since 10.07.2025, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserve to be and are hereby allowed. 7. Let the applicant, Minakshi Manjhi, involved in Crime No. 53/2025 registered at Police Station - Baramkela, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 338, 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under 5 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 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