1 2026:CGHC:734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7 of 2026 Manda Paswan W/o Kamlesh Paswan Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Maregaon, Yavatmal, Maharashtra, (Wrongly Mentioned As Yawarmaal) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 479/2025 registered at Police Station - Balod District – Balod (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that complainant Jalam Chand Jain, a VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.07 11:00:26 +0530 2 grain trader from Village Bijora, District Balod, was informed by co- accused Mukund Lal Sahu about applicant/accused Manda Paswan of District Yavatmal (Maharashtra), who allegedly, through puja and tantra-mantra, could multiply money up to ten times. On contacting her, the applicant is stated to have assured the complainant and his associates that she would perform such rituals and increase their money. Believing this, on 08.08.2025 the complainant, along with Mukund Sahu and Sant Ram Sahu, handed over the total of Rs.5,22,000/- (Rs.2,50,000/- of complainant, Rs.80,000/- of Mukund, 21,00,000/- of Raghunath Sagar, and 292,000/- of Sant Ram). It is further alleged that the applicant then took the entire amount and absconded. Thus, the report was lodged leading to registration of the present offence against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits that the complainant has already filed an application expressing no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant, which has been duly taken note of by this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 04.12.2025 (Annexure A/1). The complainant has also received the entire amount back from the husband of the applicant, and therefore the dispute between the parties stands substantially resolved. The offence being compoundable in nature and the amount having already been returned, the possibility of the applicant being acquitted at the conclusion of trial cannot be ruled out. The applicant is a lady and her continued incarceration is likely to adversely affect her health and well-being. She has already been in judicial custody since 07.11.2025. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 3 the applicant deserves the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court by granting her the benefit of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case, and the applicant has one criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the objector is present and has raised no objection to the grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 07.11.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 8. Let the Applicant – Manda Paswan, involved in Crime No. 479/2025 registered at Police Station - Balod District – Balod (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 3(5) of the BNS., be released on bail on his 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 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 his 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 Vaibhav