1 CGHC010300582026 2026:CGHC:34240 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C(A) No.1265 of 2026 Indira K. Teniti W/o Kanaka Raju Teniti Aged About 63 Years R/o Flat No. A-3 Anita Tower, Fase-2, Station Road, Dubwada, P.S. Dubwada, District Vishakhapattanam, Andhra Pradesh (India) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Torva District Bilaspur (As Per Correct Details) Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 05.08.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.06 15:14:14 +0530 2 Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.179/2026, registered at Police Station – Torva, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant alleged that the present Applicant, in connivance with the other co-accused, dishonestly induced him to part with a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on the false promise of securing employment for his son. During the course of investigation, the main accused, Valivati Venkat Naga Keerthi, in her memorandum statement, disclosed that she maintained two bank accounts, one with Andhra Bank and another with the State Bank of India, into which amounts of Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.10,50,000/-, respectively, were credited during the years 2020–2021. It is alleged that after utilizing a part of the amount, she withdrew the remaining money through her ATM card and handed it over to her mother, the present Applicant. On the basis of the said memorandum statement and other material collected during investigation, the prosecution alleges the involvement of the present Applicant in the commission of the offence. Accordingly, the offences as 3 mentioned above were registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the present Applicant is the mother of the co-accused, in whose bank accounts the alleged amount was transferred on the pretext of securing employment for the complainant's son. It is further submitted that co-accused Velivati Venkat Naga Kirti has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 22.06.2026 passed in MCRC No.5464/2026 and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present Applicant is also entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. It is lastly submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the Applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the present Applicant is the main conspirator behind the commission of the offence. It is submitted that the Applicant received an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant on the false promise of securing employment for his son and was also instrumental in preparing and issuing a forged appointment letter. It is further 4 submitted that the co-accused was granted regular bail only on the ground that she is the mother of a six-month-old child and therefore, the said order cannot be treated as a precedent for claiming parity. It is, therefore, prayed that the anticipatory bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific allegation that the present Applicant, in conspiracy with the co-accused, induced the complainant to part with an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on the false promise of securing employment for his son, the allegation that the present Applicant was instrumental in preparing and issuing a forged appointment letter and the fact that the co-accused, Valivati Venkat Naga Keerthi, was granted regular bail by this Court solely on account of her being the mother of a six-month-old child, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said order does not confer any benefit of parity upon the present Applicant. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the role 5 attributed to the present Applicant, this Court is not inclined to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the Applicant – Indira K. Teniti , filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.179/2026, registered at Police Station – Torva, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of BNS, is hereby rejected. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya