1 2026:CGHC:11021 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1638 of 2026 Uma Devi Raikwar W/o Tarun Raikwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Mathpara, Kawardha, Tahsil And Dist.- Kawardha, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mungeli, District – Mungeli, C.G. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Indrapreet Kaun Chhabra, and Mr. Ravindra Singh Chhabra, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.03.2026 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 he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 489/2025, registered at Police Station – Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that That, story of the prosecution is that FIR was lodged by the complainant, Smt. Lata Kesharwani, against Ravi Shankar Gandharva and his family members. The complainant states that she was introduced to the main accused Ravi Shankar Gandharva in the year 2023 through a fellow teacher while he was working as a salesman at a Maruti Suzuki showroom at Gidha, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Mungeli. According to the FIR, in June 2023, the complainant initially advanced a sum of ₹2,00,000/- in cash to Ravi Shankar Gandharva as financial assistance for construction of a house, the said amount was returned to her after approximately six months. Thereafter, the Ravi Shankar Gandharv allegedly proposed an investment scheme claiming to be connected with Maruti Suzuki Company, assuring that the invested amount would be doubled within six months along with monthly bonus and other benefits, including a car. It was further represented that one Ajay Gandharva, allegedly an HR Manager at Maruti Suzuki, was handling the said scheme. 3. Believing the representations made by the accused, the complainant allegedly paid various amounts to Ravi Shankar Gandharva between the year 2023 and 2025, partly in cash and partly through online transfers, cheques, and UPI transactions. The payments were allegedly made to the personal bank accounts of Ravi Shankar Gandharva, his father Ramsajeevan Gandharva, his sister Kiran Gandharva, and his wife Manisha Gandharva. As per the complainant, the total amount paid comes to 229,63,500/-. The FIR further states that upon repeated demands, an amount of approximately 24,00,000/- was returned by Ravi Shankar Gandharva in installments. It is alleged that since November 2024, the accused persons stopped returning the remaining amount and avoided the complainant. The complainant has also alleged that the main accused induced several other persons in a similar manner and collected money from them on the same pretext. On the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR has been registered. Hence, this application. 3 4. 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 no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 28.11.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, and the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 7. 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 no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 28.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 8. Let applicant, Uma Devi Raikwar, involved in Crime No. 489/2025, registered at Police Station – Mungeli, District – Mungeli (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 4 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, 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. 9. 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