1 CGHC010214902026 2026:CGHC:28697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 837 of 2026 Prafulla Bais W/o Rajendra Singh Thakur Aged About 65 Years R/o Srishti Vihar Colonyh Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Parpodi, District – Bemetara, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 08/2026 registered at Police Station – Parpodi, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 380 and 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the FIR was not registered directly by the police upon a routine complaint. Instead, the complainant, Rajesh Bhuwal (also known as Bunty), filed a private complaint (under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.) before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja. Pursuant to the Magistrate's order dated December 11, 2025, Sub-Inspector Aleel Chand registered the official FIR on January 15, 2026. The complainant stated that between the midnight of January 2, 2026, and January 6, 2026, a theft took RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 place at his family home in Village Sonpaandar. The primary accused individuals named are Rakhi Chauhan, Gracy Chauhan, and Gargi Chauhan, who are family relatives from Rajnandgaon. According to the complainant, these three individuals abruptly left the house at midnight without any prior information. Following their departure, the complainant discovered that approximately 10 Lakhs in cash and 60 to 70 tolas of gold jewellery belonging to his late mother were missing from the house almirah. Prafulla Bais (W/o Rajendra Singh Thakur), a 65-year-old resident of Srishti Vihar Colony, Rajnandgaon, is arrayed as Accused No. 4. The specific allegation leveled against her by the prosecution/complainant is that she instigated and encouraged (protsahit kiya) the other co-accused persons to execute the alleged theft. The complainant further alleged that when he tried to contact the primary accused individuals on January 7, 2026, their mobile phones were switched off. He also noted that they failed to attend his late mother's final rites (Terhavin ritual) on January 15, 2026. Furthermore, it is alleged that the accused persons posted pictures on social media platforms wearing the stolen jewelry to deceive investigators. Based on these assertions, the police registered the case under Sections 379, 380, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing theft inside a dwelling house with common intention. Hence, this application. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant happens to be the aunt of the co-accused, who has dispute with her sister for which the complaint has been lodged against the applicant and other co-accused, and it is alleged that the applicant 3 has instigated the other co-accused to commit theft of cash and gold jewelry which belong with the late mother of the complainant. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary as well as the material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR in the present case was not lodged immediately on the basis of a direct police complaint, but came to be registered by the police only pursuant to an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja on an application preferred by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., in compliance whereof the concerned Police registered the FIR. It is further noticed that the present applicant has not been attributed any overt act of actual commission of theft and the allegation against her is only that she instigated the other co-accused to commit theft of cash and gold jewelry which belong with the late mother of the complainant. The applicant is a 65-year-old woman and the nature of accusation against her appears to be based mainly on omnibus allegations arising out of a family dispute, at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 4 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Prafulla Bais, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant shall not involve themself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rajshekhar