1 CGHC010310282026 2026:CGHC:36574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7386 of 2026 Rekha Gupta W/o Harishankar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ward No. 25, Maruti, No. 25, Maruti Bihar Colony Champa P.S. Champa District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O/cer, Police Station Champa District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. This is the 2rst bail application 2led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 256/2026 registered at Police Station- Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant submitted a written complaint before the concerned Police Station RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 alleging that the accused persons had received a total amount of Rs.2,04,97,502/- through cheques and RTGS from LIC Loan, Gold Loan and Kisan Credit Card during the period from 07.02.2022 to 30.07.2025, on the pretext of investing the said amount in the share market. It is further alleged that, out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.39,99,400/- was not returned to the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered an o<ence under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the applicant and other accused persons. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent lady and has been falsely implicated in the present case, having no role whatsoever in the alleged o<ence. It is submitted that although the alleged transactions pertain to the period commencing from 2022, the FIR has been lodged only in the year 2026, after an unexplained and considerable delay. As per the prosecution allegation itself, the applicant’s husband, who is working as a Business Assistant with the Union of India, had advised certain investors to invest money in the share market, pursuant to which the complainant and other investors invested their money, however, due to a subsequent decline in the share market, the investors allegedly su<ered losses and, thereafter, the complainant lodged the present complaint against the applicant and her husband. It is further submitted that the applicant, being a housewife, neither participated in nor derived any bene2t from the alleged transactions and has not played any role in the commission of the alleged 3 o<ence. She further submits that when the complainant did not receive the expected returns from the share market investment, he allegedly used 2lthy language and extended threats to the applicant’s husband, pursuant to which he had submitted several complaints before the concerned authorities regarding the alleged looting of his mobile phone and documents relating to LIC and bank cheques bearing signatures, but no action was taken thereon. Copies of such complaints have been collectively 2led as Annexure A-3. It is also submitted that the allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated and that she has been arrested merely on the basis of the complaint without any material establishing her involvement in the alleged o<ence. The applicant is in custody since 21.07.2026 and, being a housewife, her continued pre-trial detention is causing serious hardship to her family, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has not been 2led before the competent Court. He also submits that the applicant, along with the other accused persons, was involved in inducing the complainant and other investors to invest substantial amounts in the share market, pursuant to which an amount of Rs.2,04,97,502/- was received, out of which Rs.39,99,400/- has allegedly not been returned. It is further submitted that the applicant has been speci2cally named in the FIR and the matter is still under investigation; therefore, her custodial interrogation may be required 4 for proper investigation and for ascertaining the role of the applicant and other accused persons. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application 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, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, and though the charge-sheet has not been submitted, but further the fact that the applicant is admittedly the wife of the principal accused, who is her husband and is also in jail in connection with the present case, however, the allegations against the applicant are required to be considered independently and merely on account of her relationship with the principal accused, her liability cannot be presumed. The prosecution case primarily attributes the alleged receipt and investment of money to the applicant’s husband, who is stated to have advised the complainant and other investors regarding investment in the share market, whereas no speci2c overt act or independent role has been attributed to the applicant, who is a housewife. Further the applicant, being a housewife, neither participated in nor derived any bene2t from the alleged transactions and has not played any role in the commission of the alleged o<ence and her role is distinguishable from that of co-accused who is the husband of the applicant, is working as a Business Assistant with the Union of India, had advised certain investors to invest money in the share market. The alleged transactions relate to the period commencing 5 from 2022, while the FIR came to be registered in 2026, and the applicant is in jail since 21.07.2026. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, and considering the nature of the allegations, the speci2c role attributed to the applicant, her status as the wife of the principal accused, the fact that she is in custody for a considerable period and the overall circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Rekha Gupta, involved in Crime No. 256/2026 registered at Police Station- Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 2le an undertaking to the e<ect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 2xed 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 2xed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, 6 without su/cient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date 2xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 2xed 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 applicant is deliberate or without su/cient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 8. O/ce is directed to provide a certi2ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan