1 2026:CGHC:18147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 584 of 2026 Neena Jain W/o Mr Puneet Jain Aged About 48 Years R/o H. No. 1280 Vakil Pura Masjid Dariba Kalan Delhi, G.P.O. North Delhi ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Saraswati Nagar Thana Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.04.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 0020/2026 registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) & 61(2) BNS 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.22 10:59:54 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused persons induced the complainant company to invest approximately Rs.11.51 crores in a proposed immovable property transaction by representing that the property was free from encumbrances and legally transferable. Pursuant to meetings and execution of an Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2025, the complainant made payments through banking channels. It is alleged that the property was already mortgaged with financial institutions and was subject to recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was deliberately concealed from the complainant. On this basis, the prosecution alleges that the accused acted with dishonest intention from the very inception of the transaction, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that The allegations levelled against her are baseless and devoid of any substance, as there is no evidence to support the prosecution case and no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. There is not an iota of evidence available with the police authorities or any other person linking the applicant to the alleged offence, except for bald and false allegations. The alleged transactions and payments referred to in the FIR pertain to the period 2025–2026, during which the applicant was merely holding a managerial role and had neither authority nor any involvement in the events complained of. The applicant had no knowledge of, nor did she participate in or exercise any control over, the negotiation, execution, or receipt of any payment relating to the alleged agreement of sale. The inclusion of the applicant’s name in the 3 FIR is arbitrary and amounts to misjoinder, as there is no prima facie material indicating mens rea or active participation on her part. It is further submitted that a co-accused, namely Vinod Bajoria, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRCA No. 167 of 2026 vide order dated 03.02.2026. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, is not likely to abscond, and is willing to furnish adequate surety and abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Her arrest would cause irreparable prejudice and stigma in the absence of any incriminating material, therefore, grant of anticipatory bail is warranted in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available on record, and in view of the fact that the similarly situated co-accused, namely Pritam Tekriwal, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble High Court in MCRCA No. 1598 of 2026 vide order dated 13.02.2026, this Court finds that the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. Therefore, without making any further comment on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Neena Jain, on executing a personal 4 bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav