1 CGHC010217892026 2026:CGHC:29172 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5123 of 2026 1 - Smt. Kulwantin Bai Dhruv W/o Keshnath Dhruv Aged About 40 Years R/o Paragaon, P.S. Gobra Nawapara, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Keshri Gond W/o Ganesh Gond Aged About 36 Years R/o Gajmara (Pathartola), P.S. Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gariaband, District- Gariaband (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 78/2026 registered at Police Station- Gariaband, District- Gariaband, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 01.04.2026, the complainant, Smt. Kavita Diwan, lodged a written report at Police RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Station Gariaband alleging that the present applicants induced her to part with an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the assurance that they would cure her husband’s alcohol addiction and free him from the alleged effects of evil spirits and supernatural influences. It is alleged that the applicants received the said amount from the complainant in several installments during meetings held near the Shani Mandir as well as at the complainant’s residence. On the basis of the said allegations, a criminal case was registered against the applicants, and during the course of investigation, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to a conspiracy hatched by the complainant and her family members. It is submitted that the complainant had earlier purchased certain materials and “Madhuras” from the female applicant and, in order to avoid payment of the amount due towards such purchases, the complainant and her husband falsely implicated the applicants following a dispute between the parties. He further submits that the applicants belong to a poor and marginalized family and earn their livelihood through manual labour, sweeping, swabbing, and other daily wage work. The female applicants are housewives, and their children and family members are entirely dependent upon them for their day-to-day needs. Their continued incarceration has caused extreme financial hardship to the family and has adversely affected the welfare of their dependent 3 children. It is further submitted that the alleged offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. He places particular emphasis on the fact that another FIR bearing Crime No. 77/2026 was registered on the very same day by Smt. Parwati Yadav on substantially similar allegations and under identical provisions of law, which demonstrates a concerted and motivated attempt to falsely implicate the applicants through multiple prosecutions. It is submitted that in the said Crime No. 77/2026, this Hon’ble Court has already granted bail to the applicants vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5115/2026, and therefore the applicants are entitled to the benefit of parity. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, they are in jail since 04.04.2026, and no further custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. Since the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion and the applicants are permanent residents of their respective villages having deep roots in society and sufficient movable and immovable properties, there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicants be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. She further submits that the allegations against the applicants are grave in nature, as they are alleged to 4 have exploited the faith and vulnerability of the complainant by inducing her to part with a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the false assurance of curing her husband’s alcohol addiction and removing evil spirits through supernatural means. It is contended that the applicants intentionally deceived the complainant and obtained money by misrepresentation, thereby causing wrongful loss to her and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. She further submits that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, along with the material collected during investigation, prima facie establish the involvement of the applicants in the alleged offence. She also points out that the applicants have criminal antecedents and are involved in a previous criminal case of a similar nature, which indicates a recurring pattern of conduct and weighs against the grant of bail. Therefore, the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the allegations, the fact that on substantially similar allegations arising out of an FIR registered on the same day, namely Crime No. 77/2026 lodged by Smt. Parwati Yadav under identical provisions, the very same applicants have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5115/2026. Since the allegations in the present case and in the aforesaid crime appear to be of a similar nature and arise from closely connected facts and circumstances, the applicants are 5 entitled to the benefit of parity. Further the fact that the applicants are in jail since 04.04.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the period of detention as well as the fact that the evidence is documentary in nature, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the applicant - Smt. Kulwantin Bai Dhruv and Smt. Keshri Gond, involved in Crime No. 78/2026 registered at Police Station- Gariaband, District- Gariaband, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, 6 without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan