Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 60389 (CHH)

MEENA BAI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/8053/2025 · 2025-12-04

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:CGHC:59277 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8053 of 2025 Meena Bai W/o Hari Singh Sehariya Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Hirnoda P.S. - Vidisha, Kotwali, District- Vidisha (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Gobra Nawapara Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Tandon Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.12.2025 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. 533/2024, registered at Police Station – Gobra Nawapara District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) & 3(5) of the BNS 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant namely Jyoti Tejvani lodged first information report (F.I.R.) on 25/11/2024 alleging that she is working as teacher at middle school village Paragaon, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.06 12:09:46 +0530 since 02/11/2024 to 04/11/2024 she came in contact with one gaming company Helzberg Diamonds thereafter she was asked to invest certain amount and after investing she will receive the profit, on account of which she invested sum of Rs. 10,30, 256.85/- in different bank accounts and sum of Rs. 6, 70,047.20/- in the bank account of the present applicant, and rest of the amount to different bank accounts by way of UPI transaction, the complainant received profit of Rs.36,18, 041.25/- but when she tried to withdraw the amount, she was unable to do so therefore on the basis of suspicion she inquired and came into the knowledge that she has become a prey of scam and hence report was lodged. During the investigation the applicant's bank account was tracked and she was summoned by the police and on the basis of her memorandum she was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits as the alleged offences are not made out against her and her name does not even appear in the FIR. She states that she was misled by one Munni Bai, an Anganwadi worker, who collected her Aadhaar card, PAN card and other documents on the pretext of providing a loan under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, and thereafter the applicant unexpectedly received a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023, prompting her to lodge complaints before the Superintendent of Police against Munni Bai and her husband. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 02.11.2024, but the FIR was lodged belatedly on 25.11.2024 without any explanation; no incriminating material has been seized from the applicant other than her Aadhaar card, no evidence shows her involvement, and the principal accused are others. The charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in custody since July 2025 and no further investigation is required from her. She is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, is ready to provide surety, and undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by this Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present 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 filed in the present case. 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, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the fact that the applicant is a woman who has been in custody since 26.07.2025, and further considering that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused whose bail application was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 6111 of 2025 vide order dated 04.08.2025, and that the conclusion of the trial may take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. 7. Let applicant, Meena Bai, involved in Crime No. 533/2024, registered at Police Station – Gobra Nawapara District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) & 3(5) of the BNS 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 his 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. 8. Office 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 vaibhav