1 2026:CGHC:1201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 94 of 2026 Sarita Kariyam W/o Chandrahas Kariyam Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Naragaon, Tehsil Gurur P.S. Gurur District Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Doundi, P.S. Doundi District Balod (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2026 1. This is the First bail application 5led 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. 117/2024 registered at Police Station : Doundi, District Balod (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under Sections 420/34 and 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. As per the prosecution story, it is alleged against the present applicant that the main accused, Kholbahara Ram Nishad, in collusion with the present applicant and her husband, namely Chandrahas, cheated the complainant and other aggrieved women. It is alleged that the main accused, Kholbahara Ram Nishad, told the applicant to form a group of 4–5 women on the pretext that banks were providing agricultural loans ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.09 17:22:37 +0530 2 without interest. It was further alleged that the loan amounts would be sanctioned in their favour, out of which 10% would be returned, and the remaining amount would be invested in a business plan to earn double the amount, from which all of them would bene5t. It was also alleged that the loan amounts would be repaid by the main accused, Kholbahara Ram Nishad, who would receive a commission of 10% in lieu of arranging the loans. Pursuant to the said plan, on 04.01.2024, one Pushpa Bai Netam formed a group of women in her village, and the loans were sanctioned by Axis Bank, Branch Dalli Rajhara. One member of the group received Rs. 30,000/- in her account, while the remaining members received Rs. 35,000/- each. It is alleged that the said amounts were collected by the present applicant and her husband from the group members. It is further alleged that other groups of women from the same village approached other banks and received loan amounts of Rs. 38,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- each, which were also allegedly handed over to the main accused, Kholbahara Ram Nishad. It is further alleged that women from other villages also availed loans and handed over the loan amounts to him. Thus, it is alleged that the present applicant, along with her husband and the main accused, Kholbahara Ram Nishad, cheated various women of an amount of approximately Rs. 16,17,000/-. It is further alleged that the installments of the loans were not paid by the main accused, and when the banks and 5nance companies contacted the borrowers for repayment of installments, the aggrieved persons came to know about the alleged cheating. When the women enquired from the present applicant, she allegedly disclosed that the entire amount had been handed over to Kholbahara Ram Nishad for investment in the business. Hence, it is alleged that the said o:ence was committed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent 3 and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the loan amounts were received by the concerned women directly into their respective bank accounts. For obtaining the loans, all the women appeared before the concerned banks, submitted the requisite documents, and completed all necessary formalities. After due veri5cation by the concerned banks, the loan amounts were sanctioned in their favour. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the applicant appear to be frivolous. He also submits that the applicant is a commission agent and has been in judicial custody since 13.02.2025, and she has derived no personal bene5t from the alleged transactions. He also submits that the main accused is Kholbahara Ram Nishad, who received the entire amount from the women. He had engaged the present applicant only as a labourer and paid her a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the said labour work. He also submits that the present applicant, except for the present case, has three criminal antecedents of a similar nature and has already been granted regular bail in two cases by this Court vide orders dated 09.05.2025 and 08.12.2025. He submits that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 13.02.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, 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 before the competent Court in the present case. He also submits that the applicant has 03 criminal antecedents of the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual o:ender, therefore, she 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. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the o:ence, and the fact that the present applicant is a lady who has been languishing in jail since 13.02.2025, further considering that, except for the present case, she has three criminal antecedents of a similar nature and has already been granted regular bail in two cases by this Court vide orders dated 09.05.2025 and 08.12.2025 and also considering that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. 7. Let applicant, Sarita Kariyam, involved in Crime No. 117/2024 registered at Police Station : Doundi, District Balod (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under Sections 420/34 and 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 5le an undertaking to the e:ect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 5xed 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 5xed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without suDcient 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 5xed 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 5xed 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 suDcient 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. ODce is directed to send a certi5ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek