1 2026:CGHC:5792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1101 of 2026 Rajani Kerketta @ Rajani Khalkho W/o Kalam Khalkho Aged About 28 Years R/o Ganjhadand P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant ___________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Ms. Smiti Shrivastava, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.03 14:52:30 +0530 2 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No.317/2025 registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District Ambikapur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 238 of BNS, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, a Deputy Forest Ranger, lodged an FIR alleging that the applicant and four members of her father's family have collectively forged Forest Rights Recognition Certificates to illegally obtain possession of approximately 30 acres of government forest land and therefore, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, who is in jail since 14.11.2025, no prima facie case is made out against her and she has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that the allegations in the FIR are omnibus and general in nature and no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the present applicant. It has been argued that implication of the applicant appears to be solely on account of her relationship as the daughter-in-law of the family, without any material to suggest her active participation or knowledge of the alleged offence. He further submits that 3 the main accused Sunita Kerketta has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in M.Cr.C(A) No.1613/2025 and accused Mahasingh Kanwar has been granted regualr bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.161/2026. He further submits that the applicant is in custody along with her six-month-old infant, while her other minor child aged about two and a half years is outside and is unable to manage without her. Lastly, it is contended that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of about ten months in lodging the FIR, which materially affects the prosecution case, conclusion of trial is likely to take quite some time, therefore, the applicant may be granted bail on the grounds of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the omnibus character of the FIR, absence of any specific role attributed to the present applicant, the fact that co-accused Sunita Kerketta has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.(A) 4 No.1613/2025 and that accused Mahasingh Kanwar has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.161/2026, entitling the present applicant to the benefit of parity, the prolonged custody since 14.11.2025, the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the personal circumstances of the applicant and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let applicant- Rajani Kerketta @ Rajani Khalkho involved in Crime No. 317/2025 registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District Ambikapur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 238 of BNS, 2023 be released on bail on her furnishing a 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 his counsel. In case of 5 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 him in accordance with law. 8. Office 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 Priya