1 2026:CGHC:7665 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 220 of 2026 Ranu Dhruw D/o Shiv Narayan Dhruw Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Arang, P.S. Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.12 16:39:06 +0530 2 the Applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.430/2025 registered at Police Station – Kasdol District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 3(5) and 111 of BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in substance, is that on 25.08.2023 the complainant, Rajkumar Yadu, came into contact with co- accused Ramnarayan Sahu and his son Gulshan Sahu, who allegedly induced him to invest money in share trading on the promise of doubling the invested amount within a stipulated period. Acting upon such assurance, the complainant is stated to have invested a total sum of Rs.81,00,000/-, out of which Rs.37,50,000/- and Rs.24,00,000/- were paid in cash, while the remaining amount was transferred to the bank accounts of Devnarayan and Janki Sahu. It is alleged that despite the expiry of the promised period of two years, the Applicants failed to return the invested amount and thereby cheated the complainant, on the basis of which the present offence has been registered. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case without any justifiable basis. It is contended that the Applicant has not played any role in the alleged transaction 3 and no monetary dealing whatsoever took place between the complainant and the present Applicant and her implication rests solely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that there is no direct or specific allegation against the Applicant and even her name does not find place in the FIR or in the written complaint lodged by the complainant, rendering the allegations false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the Applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in other criminal cases, and similarly placed co-accused persons have also been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this Court; therefore, on the ground of parity, the present Applicant is entitled to the same relief. Learned counsel contends that the Applicant neither received any alleged amount nor derived any benefit from the purported transaction and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is further argued that the investigation has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner and the present crime has been registered merely on suspicion and baseless allegations. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the Applicant deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4 4. Learned counsel for the State, opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail, submits that the Applicant is involved in serious offences and her custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair and effective investigation. It is contended that the materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose the active involvement of the applicant in the alleged transaction and therefore she does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The State further submits that the Applicant has criminal antecedents and as many as five criminal cases are registered against her; although learned counsel for the Applicant contends that two of the said cases have already been concluded, the remaining cases are still pending consideration, which reflects adversely on her conduct. In such circumstances, considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, and the antecedents of the Applicant, it is prayed that the application for anticipatory bail may be rejected. 5. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the case diary as well as the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the Applicant arise primarily out of a monetary transaction in which the precise nature of participation and attribution of individual liability would require 5 detailed examination during trial. The investigation appears to be substantially documentary in character and the custodial interrogation of the Applicant does not, at this stage, appear indispensable. It is also noticed that although the State has referred to multiple criminal antecedents, the Applicant asserts that some of the cases have already culminated and no material has been placed to demonstrate misuse of liberty in the present matter. In the totality of circumstances, particularly considering the nature of accusation, the stage of investigation and the settled principles governing grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicant – Ranu Dhruw, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant/s shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her/him/them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant/s shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant/s shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her/him/them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant/s and the surety shall submit a 6 copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant/s shall not involve herself/himself/themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya