1 2026:CGHC:2299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 72 of 2026 • Smt. Swarnalata W/o Amit Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o B 262, Adarsh Nagar, Kusmunda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Kusmunda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection Crime No.325/2024 registered at Police Station - Kusmunda District-Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28/09/24 Savita Pandey accompanied by her relative Raja Pandey, submitted an application at Kusmunda Police Station. She stated that her husband purchased a Bolero Camper Vehicle bearing No.CG-12BB-6965 with a down VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.01.16 11:00:34 +0530 2 payment of Rs.1,50,000/- and financing from Mahindra Finance through 30 installments, deducted from SBI Bank, Korba. Her husband, an employee at SECL Kusmunda Mines, rented the vehicle to Amit Mishra, a colleague, for Rs.30,000/- monthly. However no rent was deposited into her husband's account. After her husband's death during Corona Pandemic, Mishra took Rs.50,000/- in June 2021 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 04/08/21, for vehicle maintenance. On 14/08/24, a meeting was held at the office, Vikas Nagar, Kusmunda, to settle accounts. Mishra promised to pay Rs.4,00,000/- from the vehicle's sale by 22/08/24, and Rs.10,00,000/- as rent by 31/08/24. Instead, Mishra sold the vehicle using a fake NOC and refused to pay. Savita Pandey filed a report against Amit Mishra at Kusmunda Police Station under IPC Section 409 and 420. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent lady aged about 35 years old and she has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in FIR and she has no role in this case. He further submits that applicant’s husband has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.1237 of 2024 vide order dated 24.10.2024, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. He further submits that present applicant is a wife of co-accused Amit Kumar, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.1237 of 2024 vide order dated 24.10.2024. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 3 the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, allegations levelled against the applicant and the fact that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in FIR and she is a wife of co-accused Amit Kumar, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.1237 of 2024 vide order dated 24.10.2024, hence this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Smt. Swarnalata involved in Crime No.325/2024 registered at Police Station - Kusmunda District-Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 34 of IPC, be released on bail on furnishing 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 their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fail 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. 4 (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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali