1 2026:CGHC:1686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 290 of 2026 Hero Bai Mahilange W/o Dindayal Mahilange, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Sukuldaihan, P.S. Lalbag, Dist. Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- O.P. Sukuldaihan, P.S. Lalbag Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Adv. Gen. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.01.2026 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. 221/2025 registered at Police Station Lalbag, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120(b) and 201 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicant along with other co-accused persons, committed forgery by preparing a new Aadhaar card and a duplicate Rin Pustika for the purpose of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 executing a sale deed in favour of Sarita Jaiswal, thereby getting the registration of the complainant’s land executed by impersonation. It is alleged that on 06.04.2023, the complainant’s ancestral land was sold by impersonating the complainant, namely Durjan Bai. An FIR was lodged on 06.11.2024 at Police Station Lalbag, Rajnandgaon, by ASI Champesh Thakur, wherein it was stated that a complaint was received and, upon investigation conducted under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, it was found that the brother of the complainant, namely Puranik Markande, prepared a forged Aadhaar card by afÏxing the photograph of the applicant in place of the complainant Durjan Bai, and also prepared a duplicate Rin Pustika. Using the said forged documents, the sale deed of the complainant’s ancestral land situated at Village Litiya was executed on 06.04.2023 in favour of Sarita Jaiswal. It is further stated that when the complainant made enquiries regarding her land at an online centre at Sivnikala, she came to know about the said fraud, whereafter she submitted a written complaint on 02.10.2024 before the Chowki In-charge, Sukuldaihaan. During investigation, details of the bank accounts of the accused persons were obtained from the concerned banks. Upon completion of the investigation, it was found that accused Hirobai Mahilange and co-accused Puranik Markande committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereupon the offence was registered and taken up for investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has 3 been falsely implicated in the present case and is an uneducated lady. It is contended that the applicant is the cousin sister of the co- accused Pauranik Markande, who took her to the Tehsil OfÏce on the pretext that, after the death of her uncle, her name along with the names of other siblings had been mutated in the revenue records and was required to be removed. It is further submitted that the co-accused fraudulently obtained her photograph and signatures on the said pretext, whereas the applicant was completely unaware of the alleged offence and had no knowledge of the entire incident. The applicant has not committed any offence under Sections 420, 34, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 of the IPC, and the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of the aforesaid offences against the applicant. It is further submitted that the bail application of the co-accused in M.Cr.C. No. 8668/2025 has already been allowed by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2025 and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.07.2025, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as the co-accused, namely, Puranik Markande has already been granted regular bail by this Court on 31.10.2025 in MCRC No. 8668 of 2025 and the applicant being a lady aged about 57 years and has been in jail since 15.07.2025 and further the case of the applicant is similar to the case of co-accused, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant – Hero Bai Mahilange, involved in Crime No. 221/2025 registered at Police Station Lalbag, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120(b) and 201 of 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:- (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. 5 (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 Kunal