1 2026:CGHC:24665 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4910 of 2026 Pooja Sachdeva W/o Babli Gavali Aged About 27 Years R/o Krishna Heights, Block-A, Room No.- 106, Kamal Vihar, Dunda, P.S.- Mujgahan, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2026 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. 251/2025 registered at Police Station - Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 74, 115(2), 127(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story, as reflected in the written complaint, is that the complainant and her sister had gone to deliver food to their brother, Atal Kumar Bhagat. It is alleged that they were intercepted by three men along with the present applicant, who represented themselves as police officers. The accused persons allegedly assaulted the complainant and her sister, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.06.19 16:35:16 +0530 2 tied them up, and demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is further alleged in the FIR that the accused looted Rs. 7,000/- in cash from the complainant's purse, forcibly withdrew Rs. 9,000/- from an ATM, and took away various articles including an ATM card, Aadhaar card, PAN card, an iPhone, an Asus laptop, a gas cylinder, and an Activa scooter bearing Registration No. CG-04-QN-6399. The total value of the allegedly stolen property is stated to be Rs. 1,50,000/-. Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. It is further submitted that co-accused persons, namely Ankit Soni and Aasima Rao have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2026 and 05.05.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 3043/2026 and 3258/2026, respectively. Further, the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant has 15 previous criminal antecedents, however, she has been acquitted in all those cases and he has been in custody since 16.11.2025. Therefore, it is submitted 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 and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed. He further submits that the applicant has 17 previous criminal antecedents, hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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, nature of allegations and the material available on record, the fact that co-accused persons, namely Ankit Soni and Aasima Rao have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2026 and 3 05.05.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 3043/2026 and 3258/2026, respectively, further, the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant has 15 previous criminal antecedents, however, she has been acquitted in all those cases and he has been in custody since 16.11.2025, 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Pooja Sachdeva, involved in Crime No. 251/2025 registered at Police Station - Mujgahan, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 74, 115(2), 127(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, be released on bail on his 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 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 4 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 her 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 Preeti