1 CGHC010312862026 2026:CGHC:36606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7595 of 2026 Pinki Singh W/o Pawan Harihar Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o- House No. 141, Ward No. 6, Anij Line Behind Nehru Bhawan, Supela Market, Supela Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Jamul, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 437/2026, registered at Police Station – Jamul, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant, namely Alok Kumar Mishra, lodged a First Information Report on 14.09.2024 at Police Station Jamul, District Durg, alleging that he was well acquainted with the present applicant and her husband. It is alleged that the applicant's husband represented himself to be engaged in share market option trading and, along with the present applicant, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 induced the complainant to invest money in a financial consultancy/company on the assurance that the investment would generate substantial profits and that the invested amount would be doubled within a short period. Acting upon the aforesaid representations, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.16,40,000/- to the accused persons during the period from 14.09.2024 to 07.01.2026. It is alleged that initially the accused persons paid certain returns to the complainant in order to gain his confidence; however, thereafter they stopped making payments and, upon being asked to return the invested money, avoided the complainant by making false Subsequently, the applicant and her husband allegedly switched off their mobile phones and left Bhilai. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is only one criminal antecedent of the applicant for which the bail application bearing MCRC No.7588/2026 has also been filed and listed today. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 20.07.2026 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is only one criminal antecedent of the applicant for which the bail application bearing MCRC No.7588/2026 has also been filed and listed today, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, and the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that there is only one criminal antecedent of the applicant for which the bail application bearing MCRC No.7588/2026 has also been listed today, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, the applicant is in jail since 20.07.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant – Pinki Singh, involved in Crime No. 437/2026, registered at Police Station – Jamul, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, 4 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, 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 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 applicant is 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 him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar