1 2026:CGHC:8136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 250 of 2026 Ranu Dhruw D/o Shiv Narayan Dhruw Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Arang, P.S. Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai,Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.18 15:38:27 +0530 2 the Applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.470/2025 registered at Police Station – Kasdol, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 3(5) and 111 of BNS, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 20.05.2024, the complainant Rameshwar Kumar came into contact with co-accused Ramnarayan Sahu and his brother Devnarayan Sahu, who allegedly induced him to invest money in share trading on the assurance of doubling the invested amount within two years. Acting on such representation, the complainant transferred Rs.12,00,000 to the bank account of Devnarayan Sahu and further paid Rs.10,00,000 in cash, thereby investing a total sum of Rs,22,00,000. It is alleged that the accused persons failed to return the amount and thereby cheated the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, the aforesaid offences have been 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 Applicant has played no role in the alleged transaction and no monetary dealings whatsoever took place between the complainant and the Applicant and 3 her implication is based merely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which by itself is not legally sustainable. The Applicant is independently engaged in running a beauty parlour business and there is no direct allegation against her, nor does her name appear in the FIR or the written complaint lodged by the complainant. It is further submitted that the Applicant has neither received any alleged amount nor derived any benefit from the purported offence and the investigation appears to have been conducted in a casual manner on the basis of suspicion and unsubstantiated allegations. Learned counsel also submits that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the Applicant in other matters i.e. MCRCA No.1442/204; dated 16.12.2024 and MCRCA No.159/2026; dated 02.02.206 and has granted regular bail also to similarly placed co-accused persons, therefore, considering all these aspects, the Applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant and submits that merely because the Applicant has been granted bail in other cases or that co-accused persons have been granted bail, the same does not automatically entitle the present Applicant to 4 anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the Applicant is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail, and therefore the application may be rejected. 5. Considering the facts and material available in the case dairy and the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, this Court finds that no direct allegation has been made against the Applicant and her name does not appear in the FIR or written complaint. The alleged implication is primarily based on the memorandum statement of a co- accused and no specific role or monetary benefit has been attributed to her. It is also noted that the Applicant has been granted anticipatory bail in other matters i.e. MCRCA No.1442/204; dated 16.12.2024 and MCRCA No.159/2026; dated 02.02.206 and similarly placed co-accused have been granted regular bail and without further commenting anything on the merit, and as custodial interrogation does not appear necessary, the Applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicant – Ranu Dhruw, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- 5 (a) The Applicant 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 him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him/her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his/her adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant shall not involve himself/herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Priya