1 CGHC010325752026 2026:CGHC:38150 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1404 of 2026 Taruna Nishad D/o Suklal Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Manjhapara, Ward No. 12, Bodeli, Tahsil Charama, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Sumit Singh, Deputy AG. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25/08/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this second application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.124/2026, registered at Police Station Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.26 15:36:40 +0530 2 punishable under Sections 318 (4) & 111 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2. This is the 2nd anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The earlier bail application was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 30.6.2026 passed in MCRCA No.970/2026. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant alleged that the applicant along with co-accused Kailash Sahu, induced him to provide job in the Police Department and could secure his appointment as a Constable for which Rs.5,00,000/- was demanded. Acting on such representation, the complainant transferred a total sum of Rs.1,76,980/- through PhonePe to the bank accounts/mobile numbers of the applicant and the co- accused on different dates. Despite receiving the money, neither the promised job was arranged nor the amount was refunded. It is further alleged that the accused persons similarly cheated other individuals on the pretext of providing government jobs. Accordingly, an FIR was registered under Sections 111(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the matter is presently under investigation. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young woman aged about 27 years. The present bail application is maintainable because the present factual and investigative position requires reconsideration of the necessity of custodial 3 arrest. After the earlier order dated 30.06.2026, the matter has proceeded further in time and the alleged transactions, which are the principal basis of the prosecution case, are already identifiable through banking and electronic records. The prosecution case is substantially dependent upon documentary/electronic evidence, including PhonePe transactions and bank-account records. Such evidence is not dependent upon custodial interrogation of the applicant. The alleged transactions are admittedly much prior to registration of the FIR. The occurrence period mentioned in the FIR is from 31.01.2024 to 23.01.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged on 12.06.2026. The substantial delay in registration of the FIR, coupled with the documentary nature of the alleged evidence, is a relevant circumstance which requires consideration while determining whether arrest of the applicant is actually necessary. Moreover, the applicant has already returned approximately Rs.70,500/- to the complainant. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the earlier bail application preferred by the applicant has already been rejected on merits on the ground that the applicant allegedly in connivance with the co-accused induced the complainant to part with Rs.1,76,980/- on the false promise of securing his appointment as a Constable in the Police Department by claiming to have influence with the authorities, and that the applicant has cheated 4 the complainant and other similarly placed persons on the pretext of providing Government Job. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering that the earlier bail application preferred by the applicant has already been rejected on merits on the ground that the applicant allegedly in connivance with co-accused induced the complainant to part with Rs.1,76,980/- on the false promise of securing his appointment as a Constable in the Police Department by claiming to have influence with the authorities, and that the applicant has cheated the complainant and other similarly placed persons on the pretext of providing Government Job, I do not find any good ground to entertain this second anticipatory bail application. 8. 8. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Taruna Nishad, involved in Crime No.124/2026, registered at Police Station Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318 (4) & 111 (2) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve