1 CGHC010141872026 2026:CGHC:30038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 596 of 2026 Janvi Santosh Bhankar W/o Santosh Dhanesh Dhankar Aged About 34 Years R/o Plot No. 74, Kalamna, Market Bhandewadi Nagpur, Maharashtra. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Sho - Ranitarai, District Durg. C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Gulab Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.117/2025 registered at Police Station – Ranitarai, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 331(3), 317(2), 305(A) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 09.11.2025 at about 10:00 a.m., the complainant locked his house and went to attend a programme. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.16 11:11:29 +0530 2 Upon returning at about 12:30 p.m., he found the door of the house open and, on entering, noticed that the almirah had been opened and that gold and silver ornaments along with cash kept therein had been stolen by unknown person(s). On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 117/2025 was registered at Police Station Ranitarai, District Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 331(3), 317(2), 305A and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the present applicant came under suspicion, and the investigating agency visited her residence for interrogation in connection with the aforesaid crime. Thereafter, a notice dated 11.02.2026 under Section 35(3)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was issued to the applicant directing her to cooperate with the investigation, and the prosecution asserts that her custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair and effective investigation of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent lady who has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that she is a married woman, has no criminal antecedents, and is the mother of a 15-year-old son, while her husband is a labourer. The applicant has deep roots in society and is the sole earning member for the maintenance of her family; therefore, there is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence and, even if any co-accused have been named during the investigation, the applicant has no connection with them. The investigating agency has failed to collect 3 any material establishing her involvement in the alleged crime. It is also contended that there is an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR, and although the alleged incident occurred on 09.12.2025, the notice under Section 35(3)(i) of the BNSS was issued to the applicant only on 11.02.2026, after a lapse of nearly two months, without any explanation. The prosecution story itself does not contain any specific allegation of theft, impersonation, or any other criminal act against the applicant. It is lastly submitted that although the applicant's application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Court on 06.03.2026, the rejection does not preclude this Hon'ble Court from exercising its jurisdiction, as the applicant deserves the protection of anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Janvi Santosh Bhankar, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the 4 satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) she 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 her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) she shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) she shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) she shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav