1 2026:CGHC:19387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1908 of 2026 Manita Nishad W/o Yashwant Nishad Aged About 38 Years R/o School Chowk Near Water Tank, Village Kotni, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.04.2026 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. 533/2025 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Hemkalyani Sahu, a resident of Village Kotni, District Durg, and President of the Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh, lodged a report at Police Station Pulgaon ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.28 11:04:09 +0530 2 alleging that the present applicant had cheated the Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh and other Mahila Samuhs by defrauding them of an amount of Rs. 6,19,420/-. It is alleged that the accused dishonestly retained the amount given by the group instead of depositing the same in the bank. During the course of investigation, the aforementioned three accused persons were arrested. On the basis of the said report, the police registered an offence under Sections 420, 409, and 406 of the I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits as per the First Information Report and upon perusal of the entire challan, it does not appear that the present applicant has committed the alleged offence. No specific allegations have been levelled against the present applicant. He also submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis of a fabricated memorandum. It is submitted that the applicant was forcibly taken to the police station on 05.11.2025, i.e., one day prior to the registration of the FIR, and his signatures were obtained on blank papers. Thereafter, the FIR was registered on the following day. It is further submitted that, under pressure from the police, other Mahila Samuhs of the village were induced to file false complaints in a single day, alleging that the incident had occurred 2–3 days earlier, thereby fabricating a case against the applicant. He submits that the present applicant has not committed any offence under Sections 420, 409, and 406 of the I.P.C., as the essential ingredients of the said offences are not made out against him. It is further submitted that the applicant was neither involved in nor present during any transaction of the alleged loan. He further submits that the present applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent except the present case which is also listed today before this Court for hearing. He submits that the 3 present applicant has been in jail since 06.11.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, 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 submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He submits that the present applicant has 01 more criminal antecedent of the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail 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, wherein the allegation against the present applicant, is that she dishonestly misappropriated and retained an amount of Rs. 6,19,420/- belonging to the Mahila Swa Sahayta Samuh and other groups, instead of depositing the same in the bank, and further considering the fact that the present applicant has one criminal antecedent apart from the present case, which is also listed before this Court for hearing today. Moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, the applicant has been incarcerated since 06.11.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case 7. Let the Applicant – Manita Nishad, involved in Crime No. 533/2025 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek